OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, &c.) Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Wrexham District Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

BILL PRESENTED.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDEE BILL,

"to conform a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886," presented by Major BAIRD; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

DIVORCE BILLS.

The Lord Advocate, Mr. Bowerman, Major Brassey, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Jodrell, Brigadier-General Palmer, Mr. Purchase, Captain Watson, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Wills nominated Members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ANO MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABLED MEN (HOME TREATMENT).

Mr. WALLACE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by one of the Regulations of his Department which provides that, before home treatment to disabled men recommended by the ordinary medical referee can be granted, the recommendation may be cancelled by the D.C.M.S., who does not even see the disabled men; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): No, Sir, I am not aware of the dissatisfaction. The Deputy-Commissioner of Medical Services may order hospital treatment instead of home treatment, but this occasions no hardship to the disabled man who receives adequate allowances while in hospital and also while awaiting admission. The Deputy-Commissioner cannot, under the terms of the revised Circular 204, refuse allowances to a man accepted for home treatment without either having the man examined or obtaining the concurrence of the Medical Referee.

DENTAL DETERIORATION.

Captain COOTE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a man is entitled to make a claim under Article 9 of the Warrant on the sole ground of dental deterioration; and, if so, whether, if the claim is allowed by the medical referee, local committees are allowed to provide suitable treatment?

Sir JAMES CRAIG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If the medical referee certifies that the dental defect is due to or aggravated by service, the local committee can provide treatment urgently required without waiting for the decision of the Ministry on the claim.

PERMANENT PENSIONS (RATE).

Captain LOSEBY: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that soldiers wounded prior to 1914, to whom permanent
pensions at the highest rate were awarded prior to that date, have in certain cases been informed that they are not entitled to any increase; and if, in view of the uncertainty that prevails in regard to their position, he will consider the advisability of giving wider publicity to the instructions recently issued which affect them s

Sir J. CRAIG: The fact stated in the first part of this question is no doubt correct. Many men who are pensioned for disabilities incurred in former wars are now restored to health; or are so much improved that a re-assessment under present Warrants would not be to their advantage. They have, however, their rights to permanent pensions under the former Warrants, and notwithstanding their recovery they continue to draw their permanent pensions, but they are not entitled to any increase. In the notice which was issued to the Press in July last, following the announcement of the concessions in this House, it was made clear that pensions could only be granted on the basis of the existing degree of incapacity. I will, however, give further prominence to the fact by advertisement in the ex-service men's papers.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the manner that this particular class of pension has been assessed by the Medical Board, and will he consider the advisability of a personal inquiry into this particular class of case?

Sir J. CRAIG: The hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that he asked the Minister himself two questions on this particular complaint, and my right hon. Friend dealt very fully with them. I think, on the whole, there has been no dissatisfaction. But if my hon. and gallant Friend brings to my notice any case, harsh or in which there appears ground of complaint, I shall immediately give it my personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MURDERS AND ATTEMPTED MURDERS.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many murders or attempted murders have been
carried out in Ireland since 1st January, 1919, on police, soldiers, and others in Government employment?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): Since the 1st of January, 1919, the number of murders and attempted murders of police, soldiers and others in Government employment in Ireland is as follows:—

Murders.
Attempted Murders.


Royal Irish Constabulary
16
65


Dublin Metropolitan Police
6
17


Soldiers
2
4


Other Government Servants
1
3


Totals
25
89

In addition there were 25 attacks on police barracks. Two murders and one attempted murder (included in above figures) occurred during these attacks. This Return was completed yesterday, and I deeply regret to say that I have since received intimation that two more members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been murdered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many eases the murderers or criminals or attempted murderers have been apprehended?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am happy to say that now we have apprehended a good many.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ARRESTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the military and police are searching for the hon. Members for the St. Michan's Division of Dublin, the Clontarf Division of Dublin, the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, Cork City, South Kildare, Longford, South Meath, East Wick-low. County Waterford, North Monaghan, South Galway, West Cavan, North Kilkenny, North Cork, South Cork, West Kerry, East Kerry, North Tipperary, Mid-Tipperary, North Donegal, South Donegal, Connemara, and South Kerry with a view to their arrest; on what charge or charges is it intended to arrest these hon. Members; whether any of them are in fact under arrest; and whether it is intended to bring any of these hon. Members to trial if and when arrested?

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is obviously impossible for me to give information as to prospective arrests.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can I have an answer to the third part of my question? Since I gave notice of this question, you, Mr. SPEAKER, have road out an account of the arrest of an hon. Member—might I therefore have an answer?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have gone through this list very carefully this morning, and so far as I can gather it is not proposed to arrest any at the present moment. But if my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me the names probably I shall be able to identify them quicker.

MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (RAID).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 9.
asked the Chief Secretray for Ireland whether he has received particulars of the raid recently carried out on the house of Mr. Erskine Childers; and if he will state for what reasons this action was taken?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This raid was carried out in consequence of information received by the police that Sinn Fein meetings were being held at the residence of this gentleman, and that arms were concealed in store there.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Was it necessary, in order to carry out this raid, to wreck Mr. Childer's nursery and waken the children? [HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Why not?]

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION COMMITTEES.

Captain REDMOND: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received resolutions from various committees protesting against the proposed abolition of local technical instruction committees; whether he is aware that these committees have almost invariably worked with success the administrative duties necessary to ensure co-operation between the pupils, parents, and rate-payers of their respective districts and, in view of these representations, what action does he propose to take?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Representations have been made on the lines indicated in the first part of the question. I do not doubt that these committees have, as suggested, ensured a certain amount of
co-operation between pupils, parents, and ratepayers, and my hon. and gallant Friend will find on examination of the Education Bill, that this principle of coordination is being developed.

PLOTHOLDERS (TENURE).

Captain REDMOND: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists amongst the Irish plotholders owing to their insecurity of tenure and the absence of grants enjoyed by British plotholders; and whether he can state whether he proposes to introduce and pass the promised measure to ensure equal treatment given to those food producers in Great Britain?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The passing of the War Emergency Laws Continuance Bill will remove any ground for apprehension on the part of the plotholders as regards security of tenure during the present season. In these circumstances there appears to be no necessity for legislation at present, and when the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law the matter can be dealt with by the Irish Parliaments.

BANK ACCOUNTS (INQUIRY).

Captain REDMOND: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the inquiry at present being made into bank accounts in Ireland; whether he is aware of the resentment expressed by the whole commercial community at this inquiry; whether he will state by what legal power and at whose instance such an innovation has been introduced; whether this course is a breach of confidence between bankers and their customers and is strongly objected to by both; and whether he has considered the effect that such a precedent would have upon the future of banking both in Great Britain and Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: An inquiry is being held by a Resident Magistrate under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, as a result of certain seizures in Dublin in the Sinn Fein Bank. Inquiries have been frequently held under this Section. I am not aware that resentment has been expressed by the commercial community, and I do not apprehend that the future of banking will be in any way affected.

POLICE (GALLANTRY AND DEVOTION TO DUTY).

Colonel NEWMAN: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the gallantry and devotion to duty which is being shown by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police will receive adequate recognition; and whether, in particular, the defence of isolated police barracks by a handful of men against overwhelming bodies of assailants wilt be recognised as equal to a defence of a post in active field operations?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Cases of gallantry and devotion to duty shown by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police in the defence of their barracks, or otherwise, are carefully considered by the Reward Boards of the Forces, and suitably recognised in accordance with the Regulations. The rewards include special promotion, favourable records, money grants, and where pre-eminent valour in the performance of police duty is displayed the King's Police Medal may be awarded in addition.

DUBLIN CORPORATION (LIABILITY FOR OUTRAGES).

Mr. DONALD: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the estimated liability of the Dublin Corporation for the outrages on members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and for injury to property; and what effect this will have upon the rates?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that the estimated liability of the Dublin Corporation for the outrages on members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and for injury to property is £22,000, and that this amount would entail an addition to the rate of 5d. in the £.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether grants were recently made by the Government to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland to assist in meeting the current needs of that institution; whether on the 11th of January, 1918, it was promised that the continuance of these grants would be considered in the light of circumstances prevailing at the end of the following year; and whether he is aware that in the existing circumstances a renewal of this assistance is most
important to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, especially owing to the State aid given to other licensing bodies, who are naturally, by this means, in a position to educate students at a more moderate rate than the older body unless this, also, is given State aid?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, with the exception that the only body which can be regarded as in State-aided opposition to the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, is the governing body of University College, Dublin. Since the letter of January, 1918, was written, the circumstances have altered more particularly on account of the formation of the University Grants Committee. The question of a grant to the college has been considered by that Committee, and is at present the subject of correspondence between the Irish departments concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal College of Surgeons has received an answer from the University Grants Committee that they were not empowered to give a grant; therefore, does he propose to do anything?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of that, but I will look further into the question.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (SALARIES).

Major O'NEILL: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now make any statement as to an increase in the salaries of resident magistrates?

Mr. MACPHERSON: A communication has been received from the Treasury on the subject of the representations made by resident magistrates respecting their remuneration. I am in correspondence with these officers in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT (IRELAND).

Mr. DONALD: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of acres of land acquired in Ulster under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919; how many ex-service men in Ulster have already secured land; and whether facilities will be given to the ex-service
men to assist in the building of their own houses?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, was passed late in December last, and, having regard to the procedure which has to be followed under it, no land has yet been acquired by the Estates Commissioners under the provisions of the Act, but the Commissioners are taking the necessary steps with a view to the acquisition of land in Ulster as in the other Provinces. Thirteen ex-service men in Ulster have so far been provided by the Commissioners with land acquired under the Land Purchase Acts. Where the Commissioners build houses, they will, where practicable, give facilities to the ex-service men to assist in the building. Four schemes for providing cottages and plots for ox-service men in Ulster have been made by the Local Government Board, and the preliminaries are almost complete. The question of employing ex-service men in the erection of the cottages and fencing of plots will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. MOLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applications he has received in respect to Ulster?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say; but the total number of applications, as I have given, is 5,700.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Brig.-General SURTEES: 86.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of demobilised Service men who have been found employment in his Department since His Majesty issued his appeal to employers last year; the number of male motor drivers in his Department, and the number of female drivers; and whether such drivers are paid the trade union rate of wages?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Since the 1st July last, 331 demobilised Service men, including 116 who are in receipt of disability pension or gratuity, have been appointed to the staff of this Department. 55 per cent. of the total male staff are ex-Service men, 18 per cent. being men who are in receipt of disability pension. The only motor drivers employed are five males (all ex-Service men), and they are paid the trade union rates of wages.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN MILITARY COMMISSION.

Colonel YATE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration is being given by the joint Anglo-Persian military commission to the question of the formation of a naval force on the Caspian Sea.

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The point is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ARAB KINGDOM (PALESTINE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if under the terms of the Peace Treaty, Palestine, including Jerusalem, has been assigned to the Arab kingdom which is in course of erection.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

RUSSIAN ARMIES (DISBANDMENT).

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Supreme Council's recommendation in favour of peace and its statement that the disbandment of the Russian armies is a primary condition of peace, negotiations for peace have yet been opened between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government dissents from the recommendation of the Supreme Council?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): We have no armies in Russia. The reduction in Russian armaments does not therefore depend on His Majesty's Government. The question of disbandment of the Russian armies is necessarily closely connected with the progress of the negotiations for peace between Russia and Poland and other States which are now in progress.

HUNGARY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received information regarding the reported mobilisation of several classes
of Hungarian conscripts: and what action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am still awaiting the Report of His Majesty's High Commissioner at Budapesth.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it be the fact that the Government in Hungary are mobilising will that not be an evasion of the Peace Treaty of a very serious nature? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this will be viewed with grave displeasure by His Majesty's Government and steps taken to prevent mobilisation in view of the unrest it causes?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely, if it is the fact that Hungary has broken the Peace Treaty the Government will have heard of it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not give a further answer. We have certain information, but it is not quite enough for me to give an answer which goes beyond this House and even beyond this country. I must be very careful what I say, and I must wait until the reports come in.

SYRIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information regarding recent political or miliary developments in Syria; whether His Highness the Emir Feisul has been proclaimed king of a sovereign independent Syrian state by a Constituent. Assembly at Damascus and with the approval of the great mass of the Syrian people in the former vilayets of Syria and Aleppo; and whether the Allied and Associated Powers will recognise this independence; and, if so, within what territorial boundaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: It appears that the Emir Feisul was proclaimed King of Syria, including apparently Palestine and Syria, by a Congress at Damascus on March 8th; but of whom this Congress was composed, or what authority it possessed, it is not yet known. As it is obvious that the future of the territories which have been conquered from the former Ottoman Empire can only properly be determined by the Allied Powers, who are at present assembled in Conference for the purpose,
the Emir Feisul has been informed by the British and French Governments, acting in concert, that they cannot recognise the validity of these proceedings, and the Emir has been invited to come to Europe to state his case.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is that the case only with regard to Palestine?

The PRIME MINISTER: He is invited to come to Europe to state his position in regard to the whole of that territory.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Has he accepted the invitation?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that he has come to an arrangement with the Palestinian authorities, and he does not claim any authority over Palestine?

The PRIME MINISTER: That he will be able to state when he comes.

TURKEY (CALIPHATE CONFERENCE).

Mr. BENNETT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of placing before the Mahomedans of India a statement of the views of His Majesty's Government upon the claims of that community in regard to the settlement with Turkey, he will consider the advisability of giving full publicity to any statement that he may make to the delegates from the Khalifat Conference who are now in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will certainly do this.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the recent attack on Lord Acton at Helsingfors?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: According to the latest information which has been received by His Majesty's Government, the incident referred to was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the Finnish police, and was in no sense an attack on the person of His Majesty's Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether an International Commission in Berlin has been established in accordance with Article 6 of the agreement between the British Government and the Soviet Government of Russia for the exchange of prisoners; and, if not, what is preventing its establishment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no Commission at present sitting in Berlin for this purpose; the Inter-Allied Commission, which was suppressed in April last, was succeeded by an Inter-National Commission, but as this latter was never recognised by the Berlin Government it was abolished in February, I understand that the German Government has handed over to the International Red Cross the whole question of Russian prisoners in Germany.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the agreement between the British Government and the Russian Soviet Government for the exchange of prisoners has already been carried out; whether the Russian obligation under Article 7, for the repatriation of British prisoners, and the British obligation under Articles 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been completely discharged; and, if not, how many prisoners in each case are still detained?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's question is that some four hundred British prisoners of war and civilians have already crossed the Russo Finnish frontier and are at present in quarantine in Finland. Two ships are at present being employed for the transport of Russian prisoners of war from Denmark and the United Kingdom, and His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to provide such further facilities as may be asked for under Paragraph 2 of Article 5. As regards the third part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to give any figures.
I would, however, like to add that the representative of the Soviet Government who signed the Agreement in question has expressed great satisfaction with the arrangements made for repatriating the Russians from Denmark.

Colonel YATE: Have any steps been taken to make the Russian Soviet Government pay for the ruin they have brought on these people?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

RAILWAY WORKSHOPS.

Mr. L. LYLE: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any official information to the effect that the Soviet Government has transmitted a message to all Russian wireless stations stating that it is essential to introduce martial law into the railway workshops and impose upon the workmen guilty of wasting time the full penalty of martial law?

The PRIME MINISTER: Recent wireless messages from Moscow have repeatedly emphasised the necessity of enforcing the strictest discipline in workshops, and of combating internal disorganisation by any available means, but I have not seen the specific statement referred to in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it right that every man or woman who is able to work should be compelled to do some useful work of some kind?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that the view of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: It would be very interesting for the Government to begin to know that that is the view of the trade unions.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been a principle laid down by the trade unions that every man or woman who is fit to work should be compelled to work?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, we shall bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

LORD MILNER'S MISSION.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the scope of inquiry of the Milner Mission was enlarged in order to break down the boycott of it by Egyptians; and to what extent has the enlargement proved successful in this respect?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The original terms of reference of Lord Milner's Mission have not been modified, but on the 29th December Lord Milner published a statement expressing the wish of the Mission to hear all views, and disclaiming any desire to restrict the area of discussion. Advantage was taken in many quarters of the opportunity thus offered.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLAX (SUPPLIES FOR BRITISH MERCHANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has afforded all possible assistance to British flax merchants to procure flax, especially in the Baltic provinces; and whether any obstacles are being placed in the way of the flax trade obtaining flax through the ordinary channels of the flax merchants?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I discussed the whole position yesterday with a deputation of the leading British flax spinners and flax merchants, and I am in communication on the subject with the British Commissioner in the Baltic States.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the assistance of the Land Valuation Department, acting upon the information obtained by means of the Finance Act, 1909–10, and from other sources, local authorities up to the end of January had effected a saving of £876,679, or an average of £72 per acre, on their purchases of land for housing schemes; and, in view of this considerable saving to the public purse, will the Government sanction similar assistance being given by district valuers to local authorities in their purchases of land for tuberculosis hospitals, sanatoria, and other purposes where, as in the case of houses for the working classes and land settlement schemes, considerable proportions of both capital and annual charges are borne by the Treasury?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): My attention
has been called to the figures quoted As regards the last part of the question, I cannot add anything to the reply I gave to the question asked by the bon. Member on the 3rd instant.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this will involve little extra expense to the National Exchequer, while its refusal will throw an extra burden on local authorities? Will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: The fact is that the work being done by the Valuation Department, even in this restricted measure, involves as great a burden as it can bear, and any increase of work in the direction desired would mean a considerable increase of the expense. It therefore requires very careful consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: But would not a saving at the rate of £70 per acre compensate for any extra cost to the Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHEAT PRICES.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the proposed alteration of the maximum price for wheat will not help home production during this season, and whether he can take stops to stimulate early autumn sowing of British wheat with a view to reducing the price of the loaf?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot agree that the decision of the Government as to wheat prices will not stimulate home production this season. The prices announced both for the 1920 and 1921 crop are such as should be sufficient to give a substantial profit to farmers and, that being so, I am confident that they will spare no effort to increase their production, and it is most important they should be stimulated to do so.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the present prices of foreign wheat are practically responsible for the whole of the additional subsidy which it is now contemplated to put on and will he consider the propriety of looking ahead to
next year with a view to the early autumn sowing of a substantial increase of home-grown wheat, and thus securing a greater saving for the nation?

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that notwithstanding the profits made during the War the farming interest is still in a very precarious position, and it is looking to legislation for the future? Seeing that farmers work five years ahead, will legislation try to do the same thing?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the general purport of the answer I gave We know that farmers make their arrangements for wheat growing five or seven years ahead. With regard to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, the difficulty is not so much that of price as of exchange. We feel fairly sanguine that the exchange will improve considerably by 1921. But still prices are very high, and in the arrangement we have made with the farmers both those considerations have been borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government has now considered the Report of the military, naval, and air departments on the question of the Channel Tunnel; if he can state the decision of the Government; and if they will support the Bill for the construction of the tunnel so that it may have an opportunity of passing this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I very much regret that the Government has not yet had time to come to a decision on this matter, which requires most careful investigation.

Sir A. FELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he agreed, when we met him in Downing Street, that the matter was urgent, and said that the Government would give an early decision? We expected that decision before Christmas, but it is now nearly Easter.

The PRIME MINISTER: I had some hope of being able to announce the decision in time—should it be favourable
—to enable the companies to give the necessary notices. But that could not be done, and there is not, therefore, the same urgency.

Sir A. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two great railway companies—the British and the French— are awaiting the decision with the greatest anxiety?

The PRIME MINISTER: I fully realise that. But this is a question of the policy of the country, and it is important from the point of view of the security of the country. The decision, therefore, cannot be hurried.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA.

SILVER COINAGE IN COLONIES.

Mr. STEWART: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that silver coins of 500 fine are to be issued to the inhabitants of our West African Colonies, whereas silver coins of only 450 fine are being given to the inhabitants of our East African Colonies; and, in view of the fact that the British Government have never yet issued a coin for unlimited legal tender composed of more than half of base metal, he will give instructions that all sections of His Majesty's African Colonial subjects are placed on an equality as to the intrinsic value of their money?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): It has now been decided for the sake of uniformity to adopt 500 as the fineness of the coin which is to replace the Indian rupee in East Africa. To emphasise this point of uniformity still more clearly the new coin will be called a florin and the coin which is to replace the half-rupee a shilling.

Mr. STEWART: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether in view of the heavy fall in the price of silver he will endeavour to obtain for the Colonies under his administration as good money as the Indian Government have secured in their country?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The money will be equally good so long as it is procured at the same rate of exchange.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the new coinage of British East Africa and the Tanganyika territory will be a florin divided into 100 cents or into 24 pence?

Lieut.-Coionel AMERY: Into 100 cents, and the 50 cent piece will be known as a shilling.

Mr. STEWART: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think a native would think a coin 500 fine as good as a rupee 916 fine?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it called a florin or a rupee?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: A florin.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Viscount CURZON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the terms of the contract under which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in which the British Government has a controlling interest, agrees to supply the Shell Oil Company with its produce until the end of the year 1922?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am unable to disclose the terms of commercial contracts entered into by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This particular contract, as I have previously stated, was concluded in 1912 before His Majesty's Government acquired an interest in the company.

Viscount CURZON: Have the Government an interest in this company and, if so, is not the House entitled to know what the interest is'

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Government have a predominating interest in the Anglo-Persian Company, holding two-thirds of the ordinary shares, besides debentures. I thought that was notorious. The Government does not interfere with the commercial arrangements of the company and will not unless, which, of course, will never happen, they are antagonistic to the interests of the British Empire.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the annual production of the company?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Baronet lay before the House the various other contracts which the Anglo-Persian Company have, so that comparisons maybe made to see where we stand?

Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that when the contract was entered into there was absolutely no other means of marketing the oll which was so much required?

Sir H GREENWOOD: The answer to the second supplementary answer of the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) is, in the main, correct. The Government took control over the company in 1914 and agreed that it would not interfere with the commercial contracts of the company; therefore, I am not in a position to disclose them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 41.
asked the Prime Minister what is the approximate number of engineering and shipbuilding draughtsmen and designers continuously employed in Government Departments; what Civil Service establishment grades exist for such officers; what percentage of such officers are established; and to what Departments are these Civil Service establishment posts allocated?

Mr. BALDWIN: I presume the hon. Member is referring only to marine draughtsmen. The approximate number continuously employed under the Admiralty is 939. The Civil Service establishment grades are as follows:

Senior draughtsmen.
First-class draughtsmen.
Second-class draughtsmen.
Asssitant draughtsmen.
Mechanics on drawing duties.
Approximately 74.9 per cent. of the officers are established. The posts are all allocated to the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL IMPORTATION (BELGIUM).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government, in establishing depôts and undertaking the importation, through the British Petroleum Company, of petrol and petroleum products into Belgium, are doing this as part of the consideration
paid to Mr. Joseph Waterkeyn for withdrawing his objection to the taking over of the interests of the French, Russians, and his own holdings in the British Petroleum Company; is it the intention of the British Government to employ their steamers to supply the Belgian market; and will he state how this is going to benefit the consumers in Great Britain, seeing that it will further decrease the already short supply of tonnage?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; in regard to parts 2 and 3, there is no intention of using Government-owned vessels in this trade. As regards the vessels of the British Petroleum Company, it is not proposed, and would be contrary to the arrangements between His Majesty's Government and the Anglo-Persian Company, to place any such restriction on the use of their tonnage as is suggested by the hon. Member. There is no reason to anticipate that the pro-vision of tonnage required to maintain supplies to this country will be in any way affected.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not the tank steamers belonging to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which the Government is the principal proprietor of, being used for the purpose of supplying the Belgian market, and so hampering the British supplies?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The first part of my answer was in the negative. As to the other portions of the answer, only one steamer has gone to Belgium with oil, and that went only because there was no storage in the tanks in this country at the time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will no other steamers be used for the purpose?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say that.

Mr. BILLING: Why, if there is a glut of petrol, is the price constantly increasing?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no glut in this country.

Mr. BILLING: You said all our tanks were full.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION ACT.

Sir J. D. REES: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of prevailing
high prices, heavy taxation, and general financial stress, the Government will postpone the operation of the Education Act, and more particularly of the Clauses which will render it impossible for the poor to profit any longer by the help afforded by their own children?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that the representations which my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Education, has received have been in the favour of bringing all the Sections of the Act which affect the employment of children into operation as soon as possible. Those sections were very carefully considered by the House, and I see no reason to draw back from the policy which Parliament deliberately adopted. The future of this country depends largely on its children receiving the same thorough training as is accorded to the children of Germany, France, and America, and our own Dominions.

Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the long blue paper of instructions which has been delivered in poor homes and has caused the utmost consternation by its intimation that they will be deprived of the income produced by the services of their elder children?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the children of the country want is education and not training to become machine tools?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS (NATIONAL RELIEF FUND).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the present financial position of many infirmaries and hospitals in all parts; of the country; and whether, having, regard to the fact that practically all of them rendered great service in treating, the wounded and disabled at low rates of payment and that their present position is in part due to circumstances arising from the war, he will support an appeal to the authorities of the National Relief Fund that a portion of the unexpended balance of the Fund should be allocated among these institutions, and so endorse the claim which many of them are now making upon the sum at the disposal of the National Relief Fund authorities?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no responsibility for the
administration of the Fund, which was subscribed for the relief of distress due to the War, and it rests with the Committee to determine what objects come within its scope. But I understand that in the opinion of the Committee the Fund cannot properly be applied in making good the deficits in the administration of the general hospitals throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Major O'NEILL: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to circulate a White Paper explanatory of the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

Major O'NEILL: Will this return show the estimated revenue and local expenditure of the Northern and Southern Irish Parliaments? They are figures which have never yet been produced.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to answer without notice. I will consider it very carefully.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that without such figures the White Paper will be quite useless for the purposes of discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can understand the relevancy and importance of any figures of that kind if it is possible to estimate them at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.

Major O'NEILL: 35.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to name a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVOLUTION IN GERMANY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether there had been any communication between the Allied representatives in Germany and the leaders of the party which effected the coup d'état in Germany at the end of last week, and overthrew the Bauer-Ebert Government, before the coup d'état; if so, whether any assurances were given to
or pledges exacted from those leaders and what these pledges or assurances were; whether he has any information that General von Ludendorff is in any way connected with the party that has seized power in Germany; and when a statement of policy with regard to the new situation in Germany will be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise. With regard to the third part of the question, beyond reports appearing in the Press, His Majesty's Government have at present received no such information. In a rapidly changing situation such as that in Germany at the moment, His Majesty's Government do not consider that any fresh statement of policy is yet possible. The Allied Governments have the matter under further consideration this afternoon. The House may, however, rest assured that His Majesty's Government, in common with the Allied Governments, intend to see that the Treaty is observed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there has been no collusion between the German militarist party and certain diplomatic and military elements in this country and France?

Oral Answers to Questions — TENANCY AND RENT TRIBUNALS, DENMARK.

Colonel NEWMAN: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire into the working of mixed tribunals representing owners, occupiers, and the local authority, with an impartial chairman, which have been set up in Denmark and which are empowered to decide on questions of tenancy and rent; and whether, should the Report prove favourable, he will consider the setting up of similar tribunals in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will obtain a report on the Danish system referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVIDENDS (LIMITATION).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to encouraging greater production in industries, he has considered the desirability of limiting by law the dividends paid to
shareholders in limited liability companies, and of providing by law that any profits exceeding the amount necessary to pay such limited dividends should be distributed in bonuses to all concerned in production?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no such proposal under consideration.

Mr. G. A. TALBOT: Has it not been considered that an increase in the cost of production tends to extravagant working and, therefore, increases the cost to this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA AND UNITED STATES.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a minister plenipotentiary to represent Canada at Washington; and, if so, will he state the position that the Canadian minister will occupy vis-à-vis the British Ambassador?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is still under consideration, and it is hoped to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (EXCESS PASSENGERS).

Viscount CURZON: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the threat of the transport workers not to carry any excess passengers in motor omnibuses in order to enforce certain claims; whether, in view of the hardship that would be caused to the public if this threat is carried out the Government will take immediate action to legalise the carrying of excess passengers?

The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My attention has been called to the matter; but I am advised that it would not be advisable at this juncture to alter the Regulations which have been in force during the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prevailing ignorance on the part of the
general public as to the causes for the existing high prices, resulting in national unrest, and having regard to the urgent need for the co-operation of all classes in securing frugal living and increased production, he will issue in a concise form the Report of the Supreme Council of the League of Nations on the economic conditions of the world and their recommendations as to the methods by which normal conditions may most quickly be reestablished, so that the same may be available for Members for distribution among their constituents?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a good deal to be said for my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I will consider it further.

FINANCE (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 52.
asked whether the International Commission on Finance has yet been appointed by the Council of the League of Nations and of whom it consists?

Mr. HURD: 53.
asked what are to be the subjects of inquiry of the International Commission of Finance appointed by the League of Nations; and when will be its first meeting?

The PRIME MINISTER: The International Conference in question has not yet been constituted; I cannot, therefore, state when it will hold its first meeting. The Conference will have the task of studying the financial crisis, and of looking for the means of remedying it and of mitigating the dangerous consequences arising from it.

Mr. BILLING: When will this House have an opportunity of discussing the question of the finance of the British representation on the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House. It will arise on the Vote.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION (RUSSIA).

Mr. E. WOOD: 55.
asked the Prime Minister what is to be the composition of the International Commission of the League of Nations which is to proceed to Russia, and what is to be the scope of its inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to state the composition of
the Commission in question. The Commission will have for its object to obtain impartial and reliable information with regard to the conditions now prevailing in Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAPS.

Major GLYN: 48.
asked whether the geographical section of the General Staff at the War Office is the only Government mapping department; whether the maps of this section can be made more readily available for other Government offices and on cost payment to Members of this House; and whether the catalogue of maps issued by the geographical section of the General Staff might be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper and facilities for purchase be made simple?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The map section of the General Staff at the War Office is not the only Government Map Department; charts and maps are prepared by the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty and the Ordnance Survey Department. Maps produced by the General Staff, except some with secret information, are readily available for other Government Departments if required. A Catalogue of Maps is published (price 6d.) and advertised. A copy of this Catalogue is already placed in the Library of this House, and further copies will be supplied if desired. Catalogues will also be sent to Members on application being made to the War Office. Prior to the War, a copy of every map prepared by the General Staff which was on sale was sent to the Library, and this practice will be resumed. Members can obtain copies of these maps from the recognised agents, on payment of the published price, but I regret it is not possible to supply the maps to Members at a reduced rate. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the current Catalogue.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON MESSRS. COATS).

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
been called to the reply issued by Messrs. Coats to the recent report on their business by the Standing Committee on Trusts; and whether, in view of the conflicting statements made and the public interest aroused, he will consider the desirability of inviting an independent and qualified firm of accountants to report upon the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been called to the matters referred to in the question. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Sub-Committee appointed by the Standing Committee on Trusts are further investigating the subject of sewing cotton, and I propose to await their report before deciding whether any, and, if so, what, action should be taken.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: In view of the grave concern that attaches to these reports, can the hon. Gentleman's Department not ensure that a report before it is published is ascertained to be an accurate and full representation of the facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

CLUB RESTRICTIONS, CARLISLE.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if it is with the consent of the Government that the Board of Liquor Control Order of 12th February last, prohibiting the formation of any clubs in Carlisle without the sanction of the Board, was made; and if he will say how many members of the Board were present when the order was made?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply. I have nothing further to add to the replies that I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Silvertown and on Wednesday to the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the most sober-town in England, Coventry, has more clubs per head of the population than any town in the United Kingdom?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I did not know that.

Mr. W. THORNE: When is the Government going to take steps to dissolve this body?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Statements have been made in this House in regard to the Government's liquor policy.

Mr. THORNE: We want to know their policy in regard to this body. They want to dissolve themselves as speedily as possible.

Viscountess ASTOR: The country wants to know what is the Government's liquor policy.

Mr. KELLAWAY: That will be reported when the Government's Bill is introduced.

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of removing beer from their control, as the beer at present brewed is neither liquor nor alcohol?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should be glad to discuss that with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. GRUNDY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the appointment of the Cabinet Committee to consider individual cases of hardship amongst State pensioners, he is aware that many local authorities, including boards of guardians, are desirous of increasing the pensions of ex-servants who are suffering extreme hardship, but are prevented from so doing by the limitations of the several statutes governing their superannuation schemes; and whether he is prepared to give facilities for the passing of a measure granting to local authorities power to increase within reasonable limits superannuation allowances of ex-officers and servants whose superannuation is too small for their maintenance?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Representations have been received on this subject from a certain number of boards of guardians and other local authorities. The question of giving
facilities for legislation must stand over pending receipt of the Report of the Cabinet Committee which will no doubt take into consideration the position of local authorities in the matter.

Mr. GRUNDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the Report?

Dr. ADDISON: It will be a little time, I am afraid.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL TENANTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 57.
asked whether the Bill to give security of tenure to agricultural tenants will apply to Scotland or whether there is to be a separate Bill for Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have been asked to reply. I cannot at present add anything to what I said on Tuesday on this subject in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If there is to be a separate Bill for Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that it shall be introduced simultaneously with the English Bill, and that Scottish interests are not neglected?

Mr. MUNRO: I do not think that as a rule they are neglected. I told my hon. Friend yesterday the reasons why it might not be possible to introduce the Bill at precisely the same moment. There will be no avoidable delay in introducing the Scottish Measure if there should be a separate Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S ROLL OF EMPLOYERS.

Captain LOSEBY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that certain local authorities are refusing to consider applications for municipal contracts from firms whose names are not registered upon the King's Roll of Employers; and if he will consider the advisability of applying the same rule to Government contractors?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the action of certain local authorities to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and if I thought that within a reasonable time all Government contractors
would not register their names upon the King's Roll of Employers I should be prepared to seek the authority of a Resolution of this House for similar action. Some further time must, however, be allowed to employers to make arrangements for absorbing the requisite percentage of disabled ex-Service men into their employment before compulsory measures are instituted.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would appear to be a real danger of this Employers' Roll becoming a dead letter, and if that did happen it would be the death blow to one of the greatest hopes of the disabled men?

Mr. BILLING: Would it not be possible to make it a condition of all contracts within a certain time that any man who enters into a contract shall abide by the wishes and the Regulations of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a suggestion which ought to be considered very carefully. There is a good deal to be said for it. As to the Roll being a dead letter, that would mean a very serious position, because we must keep faith with these men who, on the promises made to them, went to serve their country.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting this Roll in post offices throughout the country, with special reference to the local firms upon it, with a view to making the scheme better known?

The PRIME MINISTER: That also seems to be a very good idea and a practical suggestion.

Mr. HURD: I put it forward a week ago, and was promised that it would be considered.

Captain LOSEBY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if, for the purpose of example, he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that heads of Government Departments should certify that they have fulfilled the conditions in regard to employment of disabled men required of employers of labour prior to registration on the King's Roll?

Mr. BALDWIN: Every effort is being made to secure that employment is found
in the Civil Service as a whole for disabled ex-service men to the greatest extent possible, and His Majesty's Government are already employing in Government Departments and industrial establishments considerably more ex-service men than the 5 per cent. requirement, and are making special efforts to continue the largest possible recruitment of disabled ex-service men. That these efforts have not' been unsuccessful is shown by the figures in the return recently presented to Parliament of ex-service men employed in Government Departments (Cmd. 598).

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain individual Departments where that employment is not given?

Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to bring the matter to my notice I shall be glad to inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

DISPOSAL OF AEROPLANES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent decision to sell all surplus aeroplanes to a private company for a fixed sum and half profits on resale, it is the intention of the Government to dispose of all other surplus war stores on a similar principle, and so terminate the cost of the Ministry of Munitions at an early date?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to reply. The conditions of the sale referred to were exceptional in that there is not, for surplus aeroplanes, either the demand or the established market value which obtain in respect of most of the other commodities which the Ministry has to sell. It would not be in the interests of the Exchequer to apply generally to stores to which these conditions do not apply the methods and terms of disposal adopted in the sale in question.

Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the question of half profits is to be based on the difference of price paid for the aeroplanes and the price at which they were sold, or the price of sale less the expenses of this private firm? If so, what steps does he
propose to take to overlook the expenses of the firm?

Sir J. HOPE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that half profits will amount to more than the £27,000,000 that the Ministry of Munitions is costing the country each year?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It would be a very unfair test to take the whole expenses of the Ministry and apply it to one single question. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) I may say that the Disposals Board will have the books and contracts before them.

Mr. BILLING: Will the company be allowed their expenses from the prices paid before there is any further payment to the Government?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Of course, as to expenses, the Disposals Board will have the accounts before them.

Sir J. HOPE: For what purpose does the Ministry now exist except for the sale of surplus stores?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The assets of stores amount to £180,000,000. The receipts average now between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 per week, and it is unfair to refer to one particular transaction the whole of the expense in connection with those gigantic amounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SURPLUS MATERIAL).

Mr. BROMFIELD: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a White Paper showing the receipts of each Department during the current year from the sales of surplus material of all kinds, together with the excess of receipts over expenditure on any item in which Departments had traded?

Mr. BALDWIN: Trading accounts for the current year will be presented in due course after the close of the year. Receipts from sale of surplus stores will appear in the year's accounts, and my right hon. Friend will probably have some observations to make upon the subject in his Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates has been lost to the national exchequer during each of the last five years by the exemption of the profits of co-operative societies from Income Tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: The view expressed by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Royal Commission on the Income Tax was that the exchequer had in the past received the full amount which according to the general principles upon which the tax is based can be regarded as properly payable in respect of the operations of Cooperative Societies. This view finds general confirmation in the recommendations of the Royal Commission contained in Part V, Section 12, of their Report, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR BONDS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the annoyance caused to working men who invested in War Bonds through the Post Office, and when they drew their money they only got £88 for each £100 so invested; is he aware that this is causing people to invest elsewhere; and will he inquire if anything can be done in the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: War Bonds, like other securities, are subject to temporary market fluctuations, and holders who are compelled to realise at an unfavourable moment inevitably suffer loss, just as they would make a profit if they realised at a favourable moment. If a holder of War Bonds retains his holding until maturity the bonus assures him of a profit, and as the maturity date approaches the bonds must certainly rise above issue price. War Savings Certificates provide a suitable investment for those who wish to secure repayment of the sum invested in full at any moment, and were specially devised to meet the special needs of the small investor in the matter of avoidance of fluctuations in capital value.

Mr. CAIRNS: Does that apply to innocent men who know nothing of the tricks of the Exchange?

Mr. BALDWIN: They suffer exactly the same as innocent people in all ranks of life.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (EARNINGS).

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 65.
asked whether the administrative concessions re the earnings of old age pensioners are still operative; and, if not, whether any new regulations will be introduced permitting pensioners to earn wages up to 3Cs. per week?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative. The payment, by administrative action, of old age pensions not authorised by law was held to be justifiable as an emergency measure in time of war; but the concessions referred to have been superseded by the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, which came into operation on the 2nd January last.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTIQUES AND OBJETS D'ART (EXPORT DUTY).

Sir W. BULL: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of imposing an adequate export duty upon all antiques and objets d'art purchased in this country for disposal abroad, as is imposed by Italy in respect of such articles?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to make any statement with regard to possible changes of taxation until the Budget is opened.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLERICAL INCOMES (TITHE).

Captain COOTE: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the taxation of clerical incomes derived from tithe as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister early this Session?

Mr. BALDWIN: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the rating of Tithe Rent Charge, which formed the subject of an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 19th February. I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that clergymen who derive income from tithe are the only people who are charged Income Tax and rates on the whole of their earnings?

Mr. BALDWIN: I quite realise the position, but my hon. and gallant Friend realises also that it is a very intricate subject, and that we are giving attention to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (EQUAL PAY FOR MEN AND WOMEN).

Major HILLS: 68.
asked whether the proposals put forward by the official side of the Whitley Council Sub-committee represent the Government policy on the question of equal pay for men and women civil servants?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was not the work of the official side of the Special Committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, but of the whole Committee, and was signed by every member of that Committee both on the official and staff sides without reservation. That portion of the Report dealing with the position and pay of women is before the Government, but in the pressure of work they have not yet been able to reach a decision upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SUBSTANTIVE GRANT).

Sir J. D. REES: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education what extra expense he calculates will be thrown upon the ratepayers by the raising to 48d. the limit under Article 6 (2) of the Regulations for Substantive Grant of Public Elementary Schools?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 16th instant to the hon. Member for Merioneth.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a borough like West Ham it will cost £50,000, which means 5d. on the rates?

Mr. FISHER: I am aware that the Regulation will act unfavourably in certain ways.

UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 73.
asked whether, if uncertificated teachers have for a long period given entirely satisfactory service acting as certificated teachers, they are entitled to the same recognition with regard to pensions?

Mr. FISHER: Service as an uncertificated teacher in a public elementary school is recognised service under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, in the same manner as service as a certificated teacher.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (LONDON).

Mr. GILBERT: 74.
asked when the Departmental Committee appointed in September, 1913, to report as to the steps by which effect shall be given to the scheme of the Report of the Haldane Commission on University Education in London, and to recommend the specific arrangements and provisions which may be immediately adopted for that purpose, is likely to present its Report?

Mr. FISHER: The work of the Committee was suspended during the War, and it has not yet been resumed. The whole question of the reconstitution of the University is at present receiving my consideration.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Has a proposal been made, or is it in contemplation, to remove the central offices from South Kensington, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that these proposals are submitted for the consideration of the Senate before the arrangement is concluded?

Mr. FISHER: Yes. I think that any proposals that are to be made will be submitted for the consideration by the Senate.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 70
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that large portions of the Victoria and Albert Museum are, and have since June, 1917, been, appropriated by certain of the staff of the Education Department and have been closed to the public; whether the portions so appropriated include the galleries and rooms specially assigned for samples and designs of metal work, wood work, textiles, and also a portion of the library;
whether, in order to accommodate this staff of the Education Department and their papers, the exhibits usually shown in the appropriated rooms and galleries have had to be removed to the vaults or elsewhere where they are inaccessible to the public; whether he will state by whom and under what authority, statutory or otherwise, this appropriation was made, and when the Museum will be restored to its proper uses;
(2) Whether the Victoria and Albert Museum was founded primarily for the purpose of providing models for and aiding the improvement of manufactures connected with decorative designs, such as metal work, textiles, woodwork, furniture, leatherwork, and other goods, and contains valuable and almost unique collections of models and designs, and also a library; whether the site and buildings of this museum were paid for mainly out of moneys provided by Parliament for housing these; collections and rendering them available to manufacturers and others, and thereby helping the traders and manufacturers of this country; whether these collections have been extensively used by designers and manufacturers to the great advantage of the trade of this country; and whether the closing of large portions of this museum to the public is detrimental to our trade?

Mr. FISHER: The occupation of the portions of the Victoria and Albert Museum, to which the hon. Baronet refers, was the result of a decision of the Cabinet, the necessity for which I regret as much as the hon. Member. I hope that the occupied galleries will be set free during April. Generally speaking, the answers to the remaining parts of the two questions are in the affirmative.

Sir J. BUTCHER: By whose authority was this done?

Mr. FISHER: That of the Cabinet.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Under what Regulations, because these galleries are supposed to be open to the public?

Mr. FISHER: The Defence of the Realm Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAMWAY PARES.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department if his attention has been called to the projected increased tramway fares and the consequent discomfort of the public; and if he thinks the time has come when companies deriving their power from Parliament, and whose ostensible mission is to run such systems for the public convenience, should be prevented from following the policy pursued by privately-owned concerns, who naturally wish them to pay their way and to give a dividend?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware of several proposals to increase tramway fares, and several such increases have already been sanctioned under the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. Many tramway undertakings are at present represented to be worked on terms which do not admit of adequate provision for depreciation or renewal, and some at an actual loss. This applies to tramways owned by Local Authorities as well as to those which are in the hands of private companies, and it is necessary that in the latter case such undertakings should be able both to pay their way and to provide a reasonable return on the capital invested. The whole question is now engaging the Minister's attention.

Mr. BILLING: In the opinion of the Ministry of Transport, are tramways still considered to be part of our system of locomotion, or are they considered as a means of locomotion to be obsolete?

Mr. NEAL: We have not arrived at that conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HACKNEY VEHICLES (DRIVERS).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will consider the desirability of giving instructions to the police, when issuing licences to drivers of vehicles plying for hire, to make it a condition that they shall not cease work or take any action which will seriously in commode the public without due and sufficient notice, or be parties to combined action seriously injuring the well-being of the travelling public; and if he will insist that the police shall have power to immediately withdraw drivers'
and other licences when it has been made clear that they are indirectly being used as weapons to coerce the travelling public?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it would be practicable to adopt either of the courses suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYNE TEES STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. WIGNALL: 77.
asked the Home Secretary whether any steps will be taken in connection with the fatal accident, which occurred on the 16th August last, to a crane driver named William Davis, whose death was caused owing to a 3-ton crane being expected to lift a package weighing 9 tons 9 cwt. 3 qrs., at a wharf belonging to the Tyne Tees Steamship Company, Middlesbrough, in view of the fact that the district factory inspector did not report within the three months' statutory period, during which proceedings under the Factory Act could be instituted; whether he is aware that the regulations are frequently disregarded, and no prosecution follows such offences as negligence to provide proper gangways, omission to cover hatchways or protect the same while work is proceeding, ignoring the regulation properly to light decks when bunker hatches are open, and various similar offences; and whether efforts are being made to increase the number of competent inspectors in order to secure the observation of dock regulations?

Mr. SHORTT: The district inspector reported the accident without delay to the superintending inspector, but the latter decided, after having himself fully investigated the circumstances, that no prosecution could be successfully undertaken. The main cause of the accident was neglect to ascertain the weight of the package before it was attached to the crane, and I am informed that immediately after the accident the company in question altered their arrangements so as to avoid any similar accident in future. Breaches of the regulations referred to in the latter part of the question are particularly difficult to check, but special arrangements have been made for enforcing these regulations, and a number of successful prosecutions have recently been undertaken, including four convictions since the beginning of last year for failure
to provide proper gangways, and four for unfenced hatchways. All possible steps will be taken to enforce these regulations, and arrangements are being made for increasing the time given to dock inspection.

Mr. WIGNALL: May I ask whether it is the duty of the factory inspector or of the Department to decide upon prosecutions, and can the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the latter part of the question as to the intention of the Department to appoint a larger number of Inspectors?

Mr. SHORTT: There will be no further increase in the number of Inspectors at present. We are trying to arrange for a readjustment that will meet the case. With regard to the first supplementary Question, it is a question for the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS.

Captain COOTE: 78.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the difference in a sergeant's retired pension between the old and new rates is nearly £100 per annum for men of equal service; and whether, with a view to removing this anomaly, he will inquire into the possibility of deducting temporarily from the new rates a sum which, added to the old rates, would put all pensioners of similar service upon an equality until such time as the country can afford to make the new rates in full universal or until pensions at the old rates cease to be payable owing to the death of the pensioners?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that, owing to the great increase of police pay, there is wide difference between pensions granted before and after the increase. A Committee of the Cabinet is considering the whole subject, but I do not think the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member is one which could be adopted.

Captain COOTE: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make inquiries from these new rate pensioners? I think he will find considerable willingness to give up a portion of their pensions to help their less fortunate fellows.

Mr. SHORTT: I shall be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me information on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION.

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Home Secretary when the Bill prepared to give effect to the pharmacy legislation necessitated by the International Opium Convention and the provisions of Article 295 of the Treaty of Peace will be introduced?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot name an exact date, but I hope it will be introduced very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINES (SUB INSPECTORS).

Mr. R. McLAREN: 80.
asked the Home Secretary the number of applicants for the vacancies for sub-inspectors of mines; how many were nominated for the several mines inspection divisions; and if the Mining Board ignored the claims of applicants who had served in His Majesty's forces during the War?

Mr. SHORTT: There were 91 applications and 10 vacancies. Of the vacancies, three were in the Yorkshire and North Midland Division, three in the. South Wales Division, and one in each of the other four divisions. The Board for Mining Examinations, to whom all the applications were referred, have recommended the 10 candidates they considered best qualified to fill these posts. It was laid down in the scheme of selection that other things being equal, preference should be given to candidates who had served in His Majesty's forces, and there is, I am assured, no foundation for the suggestion that this instruction was ignored.

Mr. McLAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these students, having joined the Army, have had no opportunity of studying during the War, and that they were put in competition with men who had stayed at home, and under the circumstances does he not consider that there should be preferential treatment in such cases?

Mr. SHORTT: The question of the safety of life and limb is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA.

LAND GRANTS AND LABOUR.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 83 and 137.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a resolution of Indians
in British East Africa protesting against the flogging of Indian prisoners in local gaols by order of the superintendents of prisons; and whether His Majesty's Government will give orders that this method of maintaining discipline in East African prisons shall be abolished?

The HON. MEMBER: also asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the practice of the local governments of East Africa in imposing restrictions upon the sale and mortgage of land between European and British-Indian subjects causes hardship and ill-feeling among the Indians of East Africa and whether His Majesty's Government will request the local governments of East Africa to remove all such restrictions?

The following Questions appeared on the Order Paper for non-oral answer:—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether Indian soldiers who served in the campaign against the Germans in East Africa are receiving grants of land from the East African local Governments in the same way as the British soldiers of European descent; if not, whether His Majesty's Government will instruct the East African authorities to do so, in view of the resentment which is caused among the Indians by the differential treatment of British white troops and Indian soldiers who fought side by side in the same campaign; (2) whether he is aware that resentment is caused among the Indians in East Africa by the omission on the part of the Government of East Africa to appoint any Indian member on the British East Africa Economic Commission and by those parts of the Commission's Report which affect the Indian community; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing another commission with at least one Indian member to safeguard the interests of the Indians in East Africa?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will answer these four questions together. The matters dealt with in the hon. and gallant Member's four questions, including that addressed to the Secretary of State for India, are included in the Resolutions adopted by the Eastern Africa Indian National Congress in November last. These Resolutions, and the position of
Indians generally in East Africa, will be discussed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on arrival in England, with the Governor of the East Africa Protectorate, who is remaining in England for the purpose. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to make any statement on the points raised in the questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will this discussion include a representative of the India Office, preferably the Secretary of State?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have no doubt the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consult him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to the Colony in question the views of the Colonial Office on the question of flogging?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. SPOOR: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether a Government Commission on Native Labour sat in British East Africa in 1912–13; whether the hon. A. C. Hollis, C.M.G., Secretary for Native Affairs, gave evidence showing that labour recruited through the native chiefs was in practice compulsory labour; whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government now to introduce compulsory labour in British East Africa; if not, whether the Governor's instructions to Provincial and District Commissioners, that the onus of finding labour was to be put on native chiefs and elders, will now be withdrawn:
(2) whether the Governor of British East Africa has issued instructions to Provincial and District Commissioners to inform native chiefs and elders that it is part of their duty to advise and encourage young men in their areas to go out and work on plantations; whether any such duty has been imposed by law on native chiefs and elders; if not, on what authority the Governor's statement was made; on what authority reports are called for on any headman who is impervious to His Excellency's wishes; and what is the nature of the action which the Governor proposes to take against any such headman?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As I informed the hon. Member on the 23rd of February, the whole question of native labour in
East Africa, including the issue raised by the administrative circular to which the hon. Member refers, will be discussed with Sir E. Northey by the Secretary of State on his return.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That circular bas not yet been received?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE OF WORKS CONTRACTS.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 87.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that his Department has given a number of contracts for gas-fitting, gas-heating, etc., to the Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, Westminster; that this company is paying their workmen doing the work from 6d. to 8d. per hour less than is paid by other firms doing this class of work; and whether he will put the fair-wage Clause in operation in connection with these contracts?

Sir ALFRED MOND: The Gas Light and Coke Company is carrying out gas-fitting and gas-heating work at certain buildings which are being adapted for the purposes of flats in the London District. The work is identical with that carried out by the company in their ordinary business and is not comparable to that carried out by other firms. Their rate of wages has been the subject of consideration by the Court of Arbitration who decided on the 4th November last that there is no prescribed rate applicable to the men concerned.

Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices with this company with the object of preventing this?

Sir A. MOND: I will certainly do anything that is reasonable in regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCREASE OF RENT (RESTRICTIONS) ACTS.

PROTECTION TO TENANTS (CONTINUATION).

Major LLOYD-GREAME: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement as to the policy of the Government in connection with the Increase of Rent, etc., (Restrictions) Acts.

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. I have received a communication from Lord-Salisbury, the Chairman of the Committee, in the following terms:—
The Committee on the Rent Restriction. Acts met for the first time on the 25th, February, and although they have held seven meetings and have examined eighteen witnesses they have not yet concluded the taking of evidence. But the evidence which the Committee have already received is sufficient to make it clear to them that the protection afforded by the Acts against eviction of tenants or unreasonable in-creases of rent should not be allowed to-lapse at the time when the present Acts expire, and accordingly it will be their duty to recommend to His Majesty's Government that, subject to considerable Amendments; the precise form and extent of which is still to be determined, the operation of the present Acts should be continued for a further substantial period.
While I cannot, of course, anticipate the final conclusions of the Committee as to the Amendments of the existing Acts which they will propose, I am authorised to state that the Government are prepared to accept the recommendation of the Committee that, subject to such Amendments as may be determined' upon, the operation of the present Acts should be continued for a further period, and that a Bill for this purpose will in due course be submitted to Parliament

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the legislation, when it is introduced, will be retrospective, so as to protect any tenants who may receive notice to quit between the present time and the time of the legislation passing?

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all landlords are not rich and that there are many poor people relying for their bread and butter on very small rents, which are Substantially the same as pre-War rents, when the purchasing value of the pound was twenty shillings? Will he give such cases some consideration?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes. Clearly, the Act will have to cover such cases, subject to such modifications as those referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am also well aware of the cases put by my hon. Friend opposite. It is clear that the modifications of the Act should be designed to meet that class of case, with a very large number of which I am familiar.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposed legislation of the Government will affect the occupiers of flats, say, whose rents have been increased, I can assure him, from £150 to £300, and even £450 a year, without people, having the opportunity of any recourse to appeal?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at the same time whether the legislation of the Government will protect shopkeepers, who have been victimised even more than householders and have no protection at all?

Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend will be well aware bow involved are the effects of legislation of this kind, and what care is necessary to scrutinise every proposed extension. As a rule the commercial community are pretty well able to look after themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not the small shopkeepers!"] Both classes of cases mentioned are being considered by the Committee, and we shall receive their recommendations in due time. Beyond that I am not prepared to make any statement at present.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the conclusions of the Committee be in time to meet any notices to quit that may have to take effect on Lady Day?

Dr. ADDISON: The 30th June is defined as the date when the existing Act expires. The proposed legislation will be introduced and, I hope, passed before

that date, and it will operate. With regard to any extensions of the Act I am not prepared to make any statement.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister promised in this House that the investigations of this Committee would include the case of shopkeepers, and having regard to that promise, is evidence being invited with regard to the increase of rent of shopkeepers?

Dr. ADDISON: I know that the considerations of the Committee do take account of shopkeepers, but as to evidence I cannot say without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask what is the course of business for next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Next week the business will be simply to carry out the arrangements as to business come to by the Committee, and I presume the House would not wish me to state them.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 49.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Donnelly, P.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Doyle, N. Grattan


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Duncannon, Viscount


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Edge, Captain William


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Astor, Viscountess
Butcher, Sir John George
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)


Atkey, A. R.
Campbell, J. D. G.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Baldwin, Stanley
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Casey, T. W.
Forrest, Walter


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Chadwick, R. Burton
France, Gerald Ashburner


Barnett, Major R. W.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gardiner, James


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gardner, Ernest


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilbert, James Daniel


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Glyn, Major Ralph


Betterton, Henry B.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Gould, James C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Blair, Major Reginald
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greig, Colonel James William


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Britton, G. B.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bruton, Sir James
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Simm, M. T.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Morris, Richard
Steel, Major S. Strang


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Morrison, Hugh
Stewart, Gershom


Houston, Robert P.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hurd, Percy A.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sturrock, J. Leng


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Murchison, C. K.
Sugden, W. H.


Jellett, William Morgan
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Jesson, C.
Neal, Arthur
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Kellaway, Frederick George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Taylor, J.


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Tickler, Thomas George


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Waddington, R.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Lloyd, George Butler
Parker, James
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Perring, William George
Wason, John Cathcart


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lynn, R. J.
Preston, W. R.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Purchase, H. G.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


M'Guffin, Samuel
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rodger, A. K.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Mallalieu, F. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Manville, Edward
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn Jones.


Mason, Robert
Seager, Sir William



Matthews, David
Seddon, J. A.



Moles, Thomas
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hayward, Major Evan
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spoor, B. G.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E. C.


Bell, James (Lancastor, Ormskirk)
Irving, Dan
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Wignall, James


Briant, Frank
Lunn, William
Wilkie, Alexander


Bromfield, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Cairns, John
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Donnelly, P.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sir Thomas Bramsdon and Mr. Waterson.


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John

SUPPLY.

Ordered, "That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

First Report brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).

Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway and Canal Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

ROCHESTER, CHATHAM, AND GILLINGHAM GAS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the third time.

BRIDLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir FRANCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That Captain Knights, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Sir FRANCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords].

Message from the Lords,

That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Law of Property Bill [Lords] do meet in Committee Room C on Tuesday next, the 23rd March, at Eleven o'clock.

Lords Message considered.

Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Committee of the Lords, as desired by their Lordships.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LORDS BILLS.

Message from the Lords,

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the introduction of proportional representation in local elections, and for other purposes connected
therewith." [Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon Price's Patent Candle Company, Limited; to repeal certain provisions of the existing Acts; and for other purposes." [Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords.]

Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
A. "That 156,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1921.

Major-General SEELY: I beg to move, "That the number to be employed be reduced by 100."
4.0 P.M.
I desire to call the attention of the Committee to one very important aspect of these Estimates. On the general question, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) is far better qualified to speak than I am, in view of his long experience at the Admiralty, but this is a matter of general, and, indeed, of vital importance. In his statement, a lucid statement, to which tribute has been paid by speakers on all sides of the House, the First Lord of the Admiralty referred in one phrase only to the possibility of there being one Minister responsible for Defence, and he said with emphasis that it was a proposal which the Board of Admiralty would resist by every means in their power. That is a definite declaration of policy which I hope does not mean that the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Admiralty are going to oppose what seems to be of the most urgent necessity in the matter of defence, namely, some form of co-ordination between the three Services. I said the other day that the lack of co-ordination had already cost us millions of money. I am sure that is so, and some way must be found, as it was found before the War, to ensure that there is co-ordination. If the proposal were to extend, the present system, to which exception has been taken in many quarters of the House, and under which the Secretary of State for War is also Secretary of State for another Department, and the First Lord of the Admiralty also, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a ridiculous
plan. The Navy would never stand it, and the country would never stand it. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he will oppose it, I hope that it does not moan that he will oppose some system such as that which prevailed before the War, and which shall secure, when it is a question how we are going to prevent the massacre of Armenians, how we an: going to cope with a possible menace of a much greater character, or how we are going to defeat the mad Mullah, that all three Services shall be forced to consult together and not work in water-tight compartments, as I regret to say they have tended to do since the War.
Before this War the need for this coordination was found. The Committee of Imperial Defence, of which I was a member for many years—I suppose, technically, that I am still a member—of necessity worked in secret, but it did work of a most valuable kind. We are often told that we were unprepared for war. I think the German phrase that we were a nation who, while talking peace, prepared for war and were more ready, within the limits which we imposed upon ourselves, than any other nation is more near to the truth. It is the fact that under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), assisted, of course, by the present Prime Minister, and, in one most important matter, by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council (Mr. Balfour), we did make plans for a possible outbreak of war which worked better, and I say this without fear of contradiction, than the plans of any other Power that was engaged in the late War. Within the limits which we imposed upon ourselves, we were more successful certainly than Germany or any other of our enemies, and I think than any other country that took part in the War. In all our wide-flung Empire no single hostile foot was put upon British soil, except a few poor halt-drowned Turks who swam the canal. The command of the sea was obtained and maintained and ensured but for the submarine menace which was combated only later in the War, and the forces which we designed to take part in European warfare arrived at the critical moment, with the help of the Navy, where they were required with greater certainty and with greater effect upon the issue of the War than the corresponding forces of any
other Power. It may be said that different plans ought to have been made, or that we ought to have made them on a much bigger scale—that is another question—but within the limits which we imposed upon ourselves we were better prepared than any other Power. Why? I say it was because the Committee of Imperial Defence had been patiently working for years trying to think out the different problems, naval and military, and, as it turned out, thinking them out not entirely without success.
The Air having come into the picture, the problem is much more complicated, and yet there is no co-ordinating body now in existence. The Committee of Imperial Defence has not been set up and is not functioning. The Prime Minister, the only co-ordinating authority, cannot possibly have time to do it, seeing that he is our representative on the Supreme Council and must of necessity often be absent even from this country and, of course, constantly absent from any such deliberations as those of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I believe that our proper course, and I press the right hon. Gentleman, if I may, to say that the Board of Admiralty would not oppose such a course, would be to revive the Committee of Imperial Defence in a better form, giving it wider powers, with a Vice-President who would be responsible for seeing that the different views of land, sea, and air were properly accommodated before any action was taken. The failure to do this has been very expensive to us. I said the other day that the neglect of the Air Arm in its application to the navy was scandalous, and I regret to say that I can only repeat that word. It is scandalous, and I say that, although I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman himself holds the strongest views, for he has expressed them, as to the necessity of keeping an open mind and very widely open eyes as to the future possibilities of the air. Indeed, in this Memorandum which he has issued, the best and clearest Memorandum issued with the Navy Estimates that I have ever read, there is much with regard to co-operation between the sea and the air with which we must all agree. The statements are admirable; it is the practice that has been at fault.
I will just give two instances, and only two. Take the first. The dropping of
torpedoes from the air is a most difficult business. There is no secrecy in the matter, because this has been referred to openly, both in this House and outside. It was only a short time ago that the problem was solved. It is now quite easy to drop a torpedo from the air with as great accuracy as you can discharge it from a ship. No man can foresee what the effect of that must be upon our naval future, but that the change is enormous and vital must be apparent to all. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although it is not a matter of which I can speak with any expert knowledge, that it does not follow that the capital ship is doomed. That would be a ridiculous thing to say. It certainly is not doomed now, because the things are not there. We can say, however, that it has profoundly modified not only tactics, but even strategy, and from all that I have been able to learn, and this also is a matter of common knowledge, the Air Ministry have practically ceased to experiment in this most vitally important question in all departments of our naval, military and air activities, owing, I believe, to the lack of some such body as the Committee of Imperial Defence, over which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley presided. Owing to the lack of some such body, each Department, in response to urgent appeals for economy, has pursued the most uneconomical course. They have stopped practically all fresh development—this applies less perhaps to the Navy than it does to the two other Services—and have continued to spend money on all the old-fashioned things. Except for the right hon. Gentleman who, although he was at Harrow, told us that he was uneducated—and yet has shown more signs of education than any of his colleagues, one of them being two-headed—they have sold themselves, on questions of National Defence, to the reactionaries. Would it be believed that this most vital invention, profoundly altering all our strategy, has not been pursued with any vigour; and that, indeed, the experiments were recently completely stopped?
The other instance brings us nearer home, not nearer in the sense of these shores, but nearer home to our thoughts and minds. It has been truly said that the effect of Air Power joined to Sea Power is to increase the range of your guns from 20 miles to 300 miles. In the
course of our recent troubles with the Turk, troubles which are still continuing, we could without doubt have made short work of any trouble with Mustapha Kcmil whom we now know, from the speech of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, to have been the source of all the trouble, and probably responsible for most of the massacres. We could have made short work with him as we did with the Mad Mullah had the Navy been equipped by the Air Ministry with the appropriate number of aeroplane-carrying ships, seaplane-carrying ships, seaplane carriers, and all the necessary paraphernalia for ensuring that our Sea Power had the long arm of the air ready to help them. If my information be correct—I daresay that the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us, if the matter be not confidential—the provision of aircraft with the Fleet at Constantinople was so lacking that it would not have alarmed the most pusillanimous Turk. That vital part of our power was taken from us by the lack of the necessary provision.
I have attempted to deal only with a single point, and I hope the Committee will see that now, as in the past, I have tried not to speak at any great length. If I have spoken briefly, I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Committee will agree that I have attempted to deal with a matter which is one of vital and transcendent importance. To make this definite, I formally move a reduction of 100 men in the Vote, I make this definite charge against the Government as a whole, not especially, against the First Lord, who has shown far more alertness in, the matter than others; that there has not boon proper co-ordination between the services; that so far they have been built in watertight compartments; that they have not seen to it that a policy has been pursued with vigour to enable us to obtain the advantage of the new inventions that we saw in the War. I say that, so far as the Fleet is concerned, in proportion to the money spent, it will be less powerful than it would have been if it had been assured of the co-operation of the Air Force. It is vitally necessary to secure some means of co-operation, While it would be foolish, as some have proposed, to have one Minister to preside over the Board of Admiralty, the Air Council and the Army Council—no Member of this House would approve of that,
I think—we do believe that somebody, such as the Committee of Imperial Defence with adequate powers, should be set up forthwith to see that there is no further waste of money or effort on account of a lack of proper co-ordination.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I rise mainly to deal with the important question raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. He has referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The appointment of that Committee and its constitution is the privilege of the Prime Minister of the day. After consultation with the other members of the Cabinet, no doubt, he would have to decide, in conjunction with the heads of service Departments, what should be its membership and what its duties should be. My own opinion, which I give now, as I have given it before, would be that no alterations should be made in that committee in the direction of increasing the number of its members. I would rather see the numbers reduced than increased. Whether it is desirable to give it more power I do not know. In order to remove any misunderstanding which may have arisen from the language which I used last night in regard to a Minister of Defence, I should explain that I was referring solely to the proposal which the right hon. and gallant Member knows has been made in many quarters, that there should be one Minister of Cabinet rank who should represent the three fighting departments, having under him the First Lord of the Admiralty and the other heads. That proposal, I said, would meet from the whole Navy the most strenuous opposition, not from any feeling of loss of dignity or jealousy, but because the whole machinery and control of the Navy, the Air Force, and the land forces are so totally different that we do not believe it will be possible to place them in the hands of one man who should be responsible for the three. We do not think that it is possible for one man to accept the responsibility for the control of the three forces. I am confident—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had his own experience and I think he will agree—that unless you have a radical change in the constitution of the Government, more radical than any I have heard suggested up to the present, and you set up two or three Cabinets or something of that kind, you can never
approach the three Ministers who are responsible for these forces and ask them to subordinate themselves to one Minister of Cabinet rank. I am afraid that would be to offer an insult to the heads of these great historical Departments. That is the effect of what I said last night.
As regards the suggestions that have been made to-day, I do not propose to go into the question of our relations with the Air Force. We have been partially exempted from the criticism which has been made to-day on the other Departments, but, although we have been partially exempted from that criticism, it is suggested that we might do more to encourage continuous co-operation and the examination of all the conditions. We have tried at the Admiralty, as I explained last night, to arrive at the policy which I announced. It has involved very heavy labour upon the Board of Admiralty and upon the various officers of the Admiralty, and I really think my language last night was hardly strong enough. No one can properly realise the task which fell upon the Navy and, indeed, all the other Departments who were left at the end of the War, in our case, to construct a Navy which would be adequate to our future needs, and yet would not place a financial strain on the country, or a bigger burden than was absolutely necessary. Something has been said with regard to the Air Ministry and War inventions. We have really been trying, as I believe the other Departments have been, to put our own house in order, and to prepare a proper police for peace time. As to the Committee of Imperial Defence, as I have said that is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide, and we should no doubt be consulted if it were being set up again. I think the suggestion that it should be set up is one of the greatest value. I do not know what the Prime Minister will say about it. It is quite true that there are times just now when it is quite impossible that he could be available to attend, but obviously it would be very useful. We, at the Admiralty, are anxious to have this Committee set up with as much rapidity as possible. We have made our view clearly known.
We are extremely anxious also that apart from, or in addition to, the Committee of Imperial Defence, which is a body of Ministers and experts, there
should be a definite arrangement under which the staffs of the great fighting Departments should meet regularly for consultation and to work out as far as possible a common policy. To that view I have myself expressed my personal adherence. It it most desirable. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that there has been no avoidable delay. We have been constantly inquiring how such a staff could be brought together. We have a staff, a small one, taking measures to secure the presence of officers of the Dominion Navies, in an endeavour to bring about unity of action between the different parts of the Empire. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went beyond that and suggested a joint staff to represent all the fighting Departments, so that a policy should be available which would be a joint policy and one of co-ordination. To that I do not think I should offer any objections. I have only risen to make clear the language which I used last night and how it is intended to reply to this wider problem.

Mr. ASQUITH: I only intend to utter a few sentences upon some of the points which have been raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. These are points of great interest and importance, and they go far beyond even the vital questions which are raised by the Naval Estimates. I associate myself with both the right hon. Gentlemen in deprecating the creation of an executive Minister of Defence, who would be over the Army and Navy and Air Service in such a way that they would be, or intended to be, subordinate bodies. I think it is of the highest importance that each of the heads of these Departments should have undivided responsibility for his own service, and that he should not be placed in a position in which he would he subordinate to irresponsible people. I say further, with regard to that, that I take the view of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which he has just expressed, and of the right hon. and gallant Gentle man beside me, that we ought to have some machinery for closer co-operation and more continuous concentration of the staffs of the great defensive services, and that it is immediately desirable. It is a long time since I first came into touch with that problem in connection with the Army and the Navy. How far it has been
carried with regard to the Air Service, I do not know, but I hope something of that kind is going on. I think that anything which would add to the efficiency of our defensive preparations should be done so far as it secures an intimate, periodical examination of the problems, and an interchange of information and counsel between the three staffs.
I have only one other point which I will make, not in any controversial spirit, and that is with regard to the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I presided over that Committee for the greater part of ten years and watched its development. I do not know whether it is quite clear to hon. Members, now that war conditions have submerged the normal operations of that Committee, what these functions were. It was not, and was never intended, to be an executive body. It did not accept responsibility. The responsibility rested with the heads of the fighting Departments. It was an elastic body, both in its functions and its composition, which varied from time to time as the Prime Minister thought fit, in accordance with the needs of the time or the particular question which seemed for a moment to arise. Its function was to discuss questions of offensive and defensive policy. It came into consultation with temporary members of the Committee, and with the experts of the different services, so as to form a conjoint body, as experience suggested, to discuss the lines on which our policy ought to proceed. It was never intended that the Committee should take upon itself executive functions, but it was intended so to act as to avoid collisions and cross-purposes, and in some cases the waste of application or an approach to administrative confusion which might have occurred but for its existence. I must express my earnest hope after a long experience of it in peace time that the work of this Committee will be resumed.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the possible occasional absences of the Prime Minister, I do not think that during the whole of the years I was responsible for that office I was absent more than two or three times. There will be no difficulty whatever about that, as the Prime Minister always has some colleague who is thoroughly so competent to take his place, and preside. The great thing is to maintain elasticity in the composition
of the Committee, a clear demarcation of its functions from the functions of the Executive fighting Departments, and to secure, through its operations, for the ultimate decision of the Cabinet of the day, the fullest possible review from time to time of the ever-shifting questions, both of offensive and defensive policy. I hope that will continue to be the function of the Committee.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I do not wish to pursue the subject dealt with by the three right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. No doubt that is a question that will be answered by ray right hon. Friend (Mr. Long). I regret very much that my right hon. Friend should have had the misfortune to address this House at the time he did last night, because I am afraid he had a very small attendance—an attendance not worthy of such a valuable contribution to the subject he was dealing with. I hope that the public, at all events, will read in the newspapers what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that the performance of the Admiralty since the Armistice has been a marvellous one. To have reduced the number of men serving in our Navy from 407,000 to 127,000, as it will be reduced during the current year, and to have reduced the expenditure by one-half—from £157,000,000 to £84,000,000—is a matter which must commend them to the public in general, and to the taxpayer in particular. As an old member of a city which has had very long connections, and I think honourable connections, with the Navy, I think I may say with truth that the Admiralty could not possibly during the War have done without the great arsenal which I have the honour to represent. That city has been a hive of warlike industry for 4½ years. Shells, guns of all sizes and all kinds of war material have been furnished by it. Unfortunately, now it is our painful duty, as it has been the painful duty of my right hon. Friend, to discharge a great many of these workmen and women who have been working there and whose services are not required now because the work has been completed. We all sympathise with those who have been discharged, and we are doing the best we can to find them work in the peaceful industries. I am glad to say that we are managing, I think successfully, to turn very quickly into the peaceful
industries. It is no doubt a difficult question, and it is especially difficult to find work which is suitable for these people.
There is one question I would like to ask, because it directly affects my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. Even since the Crimean War, when it was first found that armour could be used to protect ships, the city of Sheffield has been the home and maker of armour. The character of that armour has changed, and from time to time new inventions have been adopted, but what is the position now? No armour is required. Very few orders for armour were accepted during the War, and, in the present Estimates—I am not complaining of it—there is no armour ordered except £100,000 worth for experiments. The Committee will see that the large armour plate firms are placed in a difficulty. We have this very peculiar special plant which cannot be used for anything else, which is very large and costs a tremendous amount. I suppose if the Admiralty wish to set it up now it would cost three or four times the amount that was originally paid for it. I take the case of a company, one of the large armour works, with which I have the honour to be connected, and I will tell the Committee what is the value of their plant at the present time. The first thing is the melting of the steel, and I am not counting that in. Then there is the big rolling mill to roll the plates, the bending process to bond the plates, the large machine shops and the forging press. These items put together (the figures are based on the valuation of 1907, to which has been added the original cost of additions since, but plant scrapped has been eliminated), comes very nearly to half a million; £486,470 to be correct. That is one firm alone. We approached the Admiralty, and we said: "What are we to do with this plant? We cannot use it for anything else; if you do not want it to make armour any more you must scrap it. That is the only use for it. But, if your ideas are not fixed about the future, if you wish us to keep this armour so that it can be used, you ought to pay just something towards the cost of maintaining it, so that it can be used as required." I understand that the Admiralty say that they do not wish us to scrap this plant, but that we should
maintain it in case it is required; but I noted yesterday that a sum of £50,000 is put down as a subsidy to pay the armour firms for keeping the plant. I think I should be fairly right if I said that you could multiply the figure I have given four or five times, so that the total value of plant of all the firms would be about £2,000,000. £50,000 a year would not go very far to pay these five large armour firms to maintain this scrap for future use. I do not say we shall not do it. We shall; but I should like to press my right hon. Friend to reconsider it. It is not a figure which really is right, considering that this plant was put up for the Admiralty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have not you been well paid?"] I did not say we were not. I think the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend last night is the correct one. At the present moment it is quite impossible to say what our future requirements will be. Our Navy is supreme at the present moment, and I think that they have rightly come to the conclusion that it is not necessary. There is to be no building in the present programme. Certain arrears are to be finished, but there is no fresh programme of ship-building. My right hon. Friend last night said that we were left in the shipping world with only two Powers whose naval strength was in any way approximate to ours. The United States was the next and Japan, I imagine, is a very bad third. The policy which I understand the right hon. Gentleman laid down was, I do not say "wait and see," but I would say" to investigate and see," to find out what other people are doing. I am glad also to know that he is going to set up a Research Department to ascertain by scientific methods what it is possible to do to improve the Naval Service. In an appendix added to my right hon. Friend's statement he says that the functions of this Scientific Research Department are:
To keep under constant review the progress in scientific knowledge at the Universities and in all Government and civil departments, institutions and establishments in this and other countries whore research work is being carried out;
To investigate all new scientific principles and developments thus brought to light, with the object of ascertaining whether they are likely to prove of value to the Naval Service; and
To act as the normal channel through which outside scientific institutions and
workers may be approached with a view to their undertaking research work for naval purposes.
I think the Admiralty are on the right lines in regard to this, and I would only like to say that, of course, this ideal must be always before the Admiralty; that the first thing is the safety of this country. I was not quite sure from the statement of my right hon. Friend last night whether he adhered to the old two-power standard. He mentioned it, but I was not certain whether he approved it. At all events the Admiralty must keep this firm in their mind, that the real safety of our Empire depends upon our naval supremacy. They have come to the conclusion, and I think rightly, that the capital ship holds the field I think the accuracy of the long-range shooting at the battle of Jutland, both German and our own, was simply marvellous, and it could not have been (lone without the battleship. I think the thanks of this House and of the country are duo to the Admiralty, the officers and men of the Royal Navy who, through the four and a half years of the War patriotically and unostentatiously discharged their duty. The late Captain Mahon said in one of his books—he was describing the action of the British Fleet during the war with Napoleon—" Amidst all the trampings to and fro of the armies of Europe there went on that silent pressure by the British Fleet on the vitals of France which finally lead to victory." I believe we to-day can say that through all this German War, for four and a half years, there went on that silent pressure that was brought to bear on Germany, and that the best thanks of a grateful nation are due to our sailors of all ranks for their devoted though unostentatious service.

Mr. LAMBERT: Like my hon. Friend, I regret the First Lord of the Admiralty had not a larger audience last night, but it was really a good augury, because it showed that people were contented. I am certain, however, that if he had put in a large sum as a sort of solatium for the losses of the great armament firms, I am inclined to think his audience might have been a little more lively and excited than it was.

Sir S. ROBERTS: I did not say large sums.

Mr. LAMBERT: I think it would have been the same if it had been a little solatium. May I come now to the Naval Estimates and say that I am very anxious to know where it is proposed that the policy adumbrated in them is to lead? I congratulate the First Lord upon having demobilised the Navy to such a large extent, and it must have entailed enormous work upon the Admiralty and the officers there. I am not, when I say that, thinking so much of the Estimates to-day as of the Estimates of the next year and the year after. What are the foundations that are to be laid to-day? It is all very well to sing "Rule Britannia," but we must have security, and the very first essential to this country is production for export. I want to ask a word or two about the capital ships. I do not propose to enter into the argument between distinguished naval experts, but, of course, there is a naval preference for a capital ship, especially a ship of the Hood type, driving along with 150,000 h.p. We would, of course, all prefer a Rolls-Royce, but mose of us have to be eon-tent with a humble Ford car. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or none at all."] The Hood cost £6,000,000, and you cannot have many Hoods if you are going to keep the Estimates down. I heard last night the argument which was put in the mouth of my right hon. Friend that it is essential to have the big capital ships for the training of the officers and men of the Royal Navy. I think my old friend, Lord Fisher, states that that is exactly the same argument as was used when it was proposed to abolish masts and sails in the Navy. I do not quite understand, but I daresay the naval experts would be able to tell me, why training on a great ship like the "Hood" should fit an officer to navigate a submarine or to steer an aeroplane. It seems to me that the type of our ships will have to depend upon our potential enemy, and whatever that potential enemy builds, we shall have to build against it, because there is no doubt that Britain must remain secure upon the sea.
My right hon. Friend in his statement said the capital ship is proof against, or rather that our operations were not hampered by, the submarine and aircraft, and that a big capital ship was able to frustrate them. But there is one danger which he has omitted, and that is the
danger from the mines. To me, one of the most serious statements made in the First Lord's statement is this, that we, at the beginning of the War had no efficient mines. Personally, I must take my share of the responsibility, because I was a member of the Board of Admiralty for some 8 or 9 years before the War broke out, but it is a very grave reflection upon the professional advisers of the Admiralty. If we had not adequate mines, if they were not efficient, it was not the fault of the civilians, and it must have been the fault, as it was the fault, of the expert officers. We always had an annual fight with the Exchequer, but we always had what money we wanted, and even in 1900, when very powerful and formidable opposition was launched against the Admiralty, the Admiralty had its way. I do not know why the First Lord has put that in his statement, that our mines were not efficient at the commencement of the War.

Mr. LONG: It is true.

Mr. LAMBERT: If it is true, that reflects upon the naval officers who were at the Admiralty before the War commenced.

Mr. LONG: No, I think not. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he is right? I am informed—I have no knowledge of these matters myself—that at that period very little was known of the best and most perfect form of mines, that it was really more in the experimental stage, and I do not think it follows that anybody was actually to blame. I think everybody set their brains to work and did the best they could, but there is no doubt, so I am assured in many quarters, that in the early days of the War our mines were wholly inefficient.

Mr. LAMBERT: I think that is true, hut the German mines were very much more efficient than ours, as was shown when the "Audacious" struck one mine and went down, whereas the "Goeben," coming out from the Dardanelles, struck two mines, and went back under her own steam. I must say I think the distinguished naval officers who, having served at the Admiralty for a long time, write books and articles condemning the Admiralty of that day because the technical apparatus of the Navy was not efficient,
are throwing a boomerang which comes back upon themselves, and I think those naval officers would probably do better not to write books, although we are very glad to know that if there was inefficiency in the British mine, and if the German mine was superior to ours, that was the fault of the experts of the day, because they were never refused money for that purpose.
I will now turn to my right hon. Friend's statement with regard to the training of officers. He proposes to interfere in some degree with the training that was established by Lord Fisher in 1903. The Common Entry is to remain the same. I do not quite understand why you are interfering at all later on, because those officers who were trained under Lord Fisher's scheme, when the War began, I think, would be about 24 or 25 years of age. They entered Osborne at 133/4 in 1903, the War began in 1914, and so they would be about 24 or 25 years of age. It was not those officers who failed; if there was any failure at all, it was among the Admirals, and those officers were not the officers who advised the Admiralty about the mines, and therefore I am a little sceptical about my right hon. Friend's modification of this scheme. He told us yesterday that they were not getting engineer officers, but how does he propose to get them by putting the engineer officer in an inferior position to that which he is in to-day? The engineer officer is to have no executive powers. He is to be purely an administrative officer, and he, therefore, will be in an inferior position, and if you have not got them when they have a superior position, how can you expect to got them when you put them in an inferior position? I candidly confess I do not understand. A young officer at the age of 19, say, volunteers to be an engineer officer, then at 21, when he becomes a sub-lieutenant, he specialises in engineering, and after that he devotes himself wholly to engineering, and will have no executive authority.

Mr. LONG: That is so.

Mr. LAMBERT: Well, to-day that engineer officer has executive authority. He can take up deck duties in common with the others, but under your scheme he will not be able to. He will never be able to command a ship or to become
an admiral in command of a fleet. An engineer admiral is not the same as a fighting admiral, as my right hon. Friend knows very well. The engineer admiral will be under the admiral in command of the Fleet, and the engineer officer of the ship will be under the captain of the ship. Therefore you are reverting to the old system which puts the engineers in an inferior position. There is no way out of it, unless I have misunderstood the modification, and if the right hon. Gentleman disputes it I will read the statement.

Mr. LONG: It is not disputed.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then how can he expect to get a better supply of engineers by reducing their status? I confess I do not understand it, and I think there must be some mistake in altering this system. Of course, it is very dangerous for men to begin to meddle with a scheme until it has been thoroughly tested.

Mr. LONG: It has been tested for 16 years.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LAMBERT: Sixteen years with the engineer officers in a superior position has not given you enough, and now you are going to get a further supply by putting them in an inferior position! In regard to education, the education at Dartmouth is to be altered. I take some interest in this, because I was largely responsible, with my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, for this scheme. As I understand, at Dartmouth you are not going to give the cadets so much time for engineering, but you are going to give them more general education. That is really very extraordinary, and a modern ship, whatever it is, whether a capital ship or a submarine, is a box of machinery. Therefore, you cannot devote, I should have thought, too much time to engineering. Engineering is the Alpha and Omega of the whole thing, but why are you there fore not going to devote so much time to engineering as has been done in the past? Here, again, I honestly cannot understand those changes in the scheme which was founded by Lord Fisher and carried on under successive Boards of Admiralty. What has been the war experience that the changes should be made? These young fellows who were trained at Dartmouth and at Osborne are young men, and in my judgment they have never failed in their duty in the War.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to explain that to me later on. In the First Lord's Statement he says definitely that he proposes to turn Dartmouth more or less into a public school, and that he does not intend to devote so much time to engineering. I want to know the reason he is going to revise Lord Fisher's policy in that respect. With regard to the Fleet organisation, in the days before the War the Fleets were concentrated in the North Sea amid great opposition. I remember the tremendous opposition to the Fleet being brought from the Mediterranean. Is not my right hon. Friend now scattering our forces somewhat? The Mediterranean is to have six battleships, six cruisers, and 18 destroyers. He said yesterday, very truly, that it is essential to show the British flag. I observe that in China there are to be five cruisers and 12 submarines. Well, you would not show the flag on submarines. I do not quite understand why they are there. In Africa three cruisers are to be kept, in South America four, in the East Indies three, and in North America and the West Indies five. Do you really want all those ships for showing the flag?

Mr. LONG: I think you could do well, if you could afford it, with twice or three times the number.

Mr. LAMBERT: I have no doubt you would be very glad to send the Atlantic Fleet over there, and it would afford a great object-lesson of Britain's naval power. I do say, although I may have some opposition from behind, which I do not mind, that those ships in these foreign stations are very costly, and they are not too popular. The men like to be home. I say to the First Lord of the Admiralty that if he is going to pursue a system of economy he must reduce the establishment in these foreign stations, and we cannot keep up the number of ships in foreign stations without large establishments. I do not object to ships going there, but to-day we have got to remember it is no use talking about economy; it has got to be carried out. I am thinking, not about my right hon. Friend's Estimates this year—I congratulate him on them—but what they are going to be next year.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Wait and see!

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend will never be an advocate of small Navy expenditure; he is too good a friend of Devonport. In days gone by we used to keep these ships in foreign waters. There is no enemy there to-day. I am asking these questions, and I hope to get satisfactory replies, for in reality I assure my right hon. Friend I do not desire to criticise him in any hostile spirit. I really want to get the most economic distribution of the British Forces. We must study economy. I hesitate, in the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn) and the right hon. Gentleman who was Under-Secretary of State for Air, to say anything about the Air policy, but is my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty satisfied with the present division of responsibility? I am sure he cannot be. It is not in order, and I do not propose, to discuss a separate Air Ministry, but to-day a separate Air Ministry is under the head of the War Office. That the Admiralty has to go to the Secretary of State for War before it can order any aeroplanes or do anything with regard to the staff work, seems to me to be a matter which is lowering to the dignity of the Navy. I do not agree with it at all. I have always said in this House, but everybody laughed at me, because so many of my friends want to get a separate Air Minister, that if you are going to have two Ministries for the three Services, the head of the Air Ministry should undoubtedly be the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Navy, after all is the most important Service. Talk about armies as much as you like, but not a single soldier can leave these shores without the Navy, and the Navy without aeroplanes, airships, and all the appliances is almost like ships without guns, and you might as well put the artillery of the Navy under the Secretary of State for War as put the aircraft under the Secretary of State for War. There is no immediate danger, but I do ask my right hon. Friend to give us some more satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. If to-day were 1914, we should have a reduction moved quickly, because in time of war such a division of responsibility would make it impossible to accomplish anything satisfactorily. I think it would be very wise indeed if the Admiralty could control more of the Air Forces. The training must be very much the same. I observe that in Sir Hugh
Trenchard's Memorandum it is stated that every naval officer must be a gunner, that every naval officer must be a navigator, and that he ought to be trained in engines and wireless. These four subjects are cognate subjects with the Navy, and I contend the Admiralty should have more control over the Air Service, and that if you are to have two Ministries for the three services, I say emphatically that the Air Force should be under the Admiralty rather than the War Office. May I say a word about the dockyards? Before the War we had six dockyards, and during the War there was completed that great splendid new establishment at Rosyth. Rosyth was selected specially—I happen to know because I was there during the time—to meet and cope with the German menace.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why was it not ready?

Mr. LAMBERT: It was pretty well ready, but that is not quite my argument. I think I could have a good deal to say about that if I wanted to, but I am only saying Rosyth was built because of the German menace.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why the opposition of Devonport?

Mr. LAMBERT: There was no opposition from Devonport. I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend the First Lord that he will have a very difficult and very thankless task. He has got to reduce the population of the dockyards, or he has got to close them. It is a very difficult problem to solve. I do not envy him. The populations around these dockyards—Haulbowline, Pembroke, Sheer-ness, Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, and now Rosyth—have grown up because of the naval expenditure, and you cannot put these people out in the streets without any work to do. Lord Colwyn has made a very valuable report on the subject, but it does not carry us much further. Lord Colwyn recommends a limited amount of mercantile work, but the guiding principles must be rapidity of construction and economy in construction, and he says that is not usually associated with these dockyards, in spite of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port. I understand from my right hon. Friend the First Lord that he proposes
to lay down one tanker at Devonport and two merchant ships at Pembroke.

Mr. LONG: They are all three tankers.

Mr. LAMBERT: It does not affect my argument. I am one of those who believe that it is impossible for any Government establishment, conducted as Government establishments are, to compete with private enterprise in the building of ships, or indeed in any other form. If there is not some other form of enterprise carried on in the dockyard there will be an enormous amount of distress. They cannot be kept on. You cannot keep men on for the purpose of doing nothing. I had the privilege the other day of going over some yards in Glasgow belonging to Harland and Wolff. There you have organisation of the most perfect description, and I have not the smallest doubt that in those mercantile yards, with the aid of organisation and machinery, one man turns out the work of two in the Royal dockyards. Therefore I put aside the idea that you can have private enterprise building ships for private people in the Royal dockyards, and I think my right hon. Friend the First Lord agrees with me. What is to happen? Lord Colwyn recommended that Devonport at any rate should be adapted for a port of call. As I understand it, nothing has been done in that direction.

Mr. LONG: Nobody wants it for that.

Mr. LAMBERT: If that is so, it knocks it on the head, but I understood some time ago certain shipping companies did want it. But I am only interested from the general point of view. You cannot keep men in the dockyards and pay them for doing no work, but you cannot dismiss those men without some consideration. I was informed from Devonport that applications had been made to the Admiralty by the Cunard Company, but I leave that to my hon. Friend opposite. I want to ask, what is the policy of the Government with regard to the dockyards? Is it proposed to keep all these seven? I do not think it is possible, and therefore I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he can close some of these dockyards this is a favourable opportunity. There are probably people who want now great manufacturing establishments. Building is very dear. There is considerable machinery in the Royal dockyards. Is it not possible by
some policy that the right hon. Gentleman should sell some of the Royal dockyards? But I am certain, if you do it, you will have to go very gently because of the populations which have grown up around these ports. At the present moment you are spending a considerable sum of money on these dockyards. Why spend this money? To-day it is not wise or economical. The amount is hidden away in the Naval Estimates; but surely this is not the time to spend this money in any of the dockyards?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It all depends.

Mr. LAMBERT: This is not the time to spend money on dockyards, when labour is so scarce and materials so dear, unless for repairs. But these are new works. You are putting in new works. It is false economy to do that now. These Estimates have a great tendency to grow.

Commander BELLAIRS: Not new work; it is work being completed.

Mr. LAMBERT: There is a great deal of new work going on at Rosyth in building houses for officials, and there is a considerable amount of work going on at Portsmouth. Do you need so many officials at the present time? Surely, if the Navy is to be reduced, you will not want so many officials? If you have not got so many officials you will not want so many houses for them! I am putting this point to the right hon. Gentleman: Is it wise for him to go in for this building programme at the dockyards? Now let me come to a subject where you are going to spend an enormous sum of money on new works; that is in connection with oil fuel establishments. Judging by the standard of the old days, it is an enormous sum of money that is projected. If we had gone to the Treasury when I was at the Admiralty and asked for permission to spend £2,500,000, I do not know what the answer would have been, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have said. You are going to spend, according to these Estimates, at Gibraltar—which is in addition to the accommodation there now—accommodation to contain the oil fuel—£187,000; at Hong Kong, £110,000; at Jamaica, £47,000; Malta, £195,000; Plymouth, £555,000; Portland, £956,000—nearly one million; at Port Said, £555,000; and on the Clyde, £400,000.
That is all new work. This is for oil fuel establishments to be begun this year. I ask again, is this wise? You are going to reduce—you have reduced—the Navy, and you will be more pressed in the future; is it wise expenditure at this moment, when everything is so dear, to launch out into this enormous expenditure for oil fuel establishments? This is nothing to do with the fuel. I put in a caveat against this when the Navy Estimates were last discussed, and I do so again most emphatically; because if you start these works you cannot stop them Now is the time to settle the question of unnecessary expenditure. I hope my right hon. Friend the First Lord will take note of it, because I am perfectly certain that a large amount of this money could be saved.
I have been talking economy, but there is one economy which I would not exercise for one moment, and that is to economise at the expense of the naval officers who have been demobilised. Naval officers have served their country splendidly during the War. Many of them are in a state of great anxiety. They do not quite know what the future will bring forth. They are splendid specimens of manhood. Therefore, I hope the Admiralty will be liberal with these officers. They deserve it.

Mr. WILKIE: Why not the men?

Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, and with the men. But some of the officers are very dismal about their prospects. I travelled down the other day in the same compartment as a couple of them. They were splendid specimens of young manhood, about 30 years old, married, and most anxious about the future. One of them picked up an illustrated paper, and, quoting from an advertisement, said, "Frocks, cheap and dainty, eight to ten guineas." That seemed a lot of money to him. It is not much money to the wife of the profiteer. A good many women of this class to-day are spending a good deal more than eight to ten guineas upon a frock, and the husbands have not done anything like so much for the country as have the naval officers. I feel this matter very strongly, and I hope my right hon. Friend will deal generously with these men. Without their ceaseless vigilance m the North Sea we should not now be sitting so calmly here. One word more in
relation to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, He and I were colleagues at the Admiralty for several years. No colleague could have been more friendly when we were working together than he. Whatever politics may have in store for him I do not know, but I can say this, that during the 13 years he hag been at the Admiralty the Navy has had an able, a single-minded, and a devoted public servant.

Sir SHIRLEY BENN: I do not rise for the purpose of criticising either Estimates or policy, except on one point—the building of merchant ships in the dockyard. Lord Colwyn's Report advised the Admiralty to do this. I want to try to get the First Lord to see that it will be necessary, not only for the Navy, but for the country, that we should build more merchant ships, even if it is difficult to do. We realise that the present Lord of the Admiralty is determined to keep our Navy facile princeps amongst the navies of the world, and it is desirable, in view of the pretty hard service of the officers, that they should be properly remunerated. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert), said a few minutes ago that this was the right time to close some of the dockyards. Personally, I entirely object to that view. We do not need them at the moment, but there is no telling when we may need them in the near future. If you are going to keep them, it is generally recognised, I think, that the life-blood of the dockyard is the building of new ships. The right hon. Gentleman said it is difficult to build merchant ships in the Royal yards. My opinion is that our British workmen realise the position just as any of us do, and that they will be perfectly ready to take the work at piece rates, or on any remunerative terms, if they know it is in order to keep them employed, and build up the merchant service If the staffs are discharged, and we need more ships for the Royal Navy in a hurry, it is going to be a very difficult matter to replace them. If the men are discharged from the dockyards and other work cannot be found for them, what is going to happen? They cannot go from port to port, from one shipbuilding port to another in order to get work, for they cannot find houses.
Take Plymouth—I am not going to deal with Devonport, for my hon. Friend opposite will talk about it—in Plymouth we have hundreds and thousands of men
engaged in the dockyards. These have houses in Plymouth. If they are sent away from the dockyards they cannot give up their houses in Plymouth because they have not other houses to go to. They cannot live upon nothing, and it is for the country to see that they have the necessary money on which to live. There is no need for us to lose any money in building merchant ships. When the War was on we had to do it, and no one would have told us quicker than the First Lord of the Admiralty that it could be done. We are suffering to-day from a lack of ships. We lost nearly 7,500,000 tons during the War. We were the great carrying country of the world. There are now other countries trying to take away from us that supremacy. They are building ships in order to sec that we do not regain our position as the great carrying country. I was in America in the autumn and I went over dockyards there where there was ship after ship being turned out by the American Government. These ships, I believe, will be sold to individuals, for I do not believe that the American Government will ever run them. But we are not going to let them take our trade away, and surely the Admiralty can in the various dockyards keep the men at work in peace time, building these ships and selling them to our shipowners so that they may run them. I trust that the First Lord of the Admiralty will re-investigate the Colwyn Report, and will make every effort in his power to see that we have merchant ships built in our Royal dockyards.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In spite of the very able and exhaustive speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty last night, in which he very ably epitomised the Naval Estimates, I confess to keen disappointment, which, I believe, is shared by other Members in this House, and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will also find by a very large section of the people of the country. I am disappointed by the policy enunciated by the First Lord, first in regard to new construction, and, secondly, in regard to the abandonment by the Government of the suggestions made and the recommendations put forward by the Colwyn Report

Mr. LONG: They have not been abandoned.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am very glad to hear it, for there was a statement
which seemed to be an official statement, and which appeared in the papers, that these suggestions and recommendations had been abandoned.

Mr. LONG: No!

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am very glad to hear that that is not so, because it removes the effect which has been present in the minds of a great many people in Devonport. In regard to the first point, some hon. Members last night, and I think some hon. Members to-day, I think have praised the speech of the First Lord on the ground that for the first time it showed economy in Government Departments. I regret I cannot join in that praise. I admit that economy in Government Departments is essential. But I do not think that the country is desirous to see that economy begin by cutting down the personnel of the Navy to a lower strength than in 1913–14, by stopping altogether new construction, or by reducing the position of the Royal dockyards. That would be beginning at the wrong end. Let us not forget what happened before the War. For many years we had not sufficient men to man the Navy. We had not sufficient cruisers and torpedo destroyers when war broke out. Why was that? It was because of the cry of economy which was set up by Little Englanders, supported by my right hon. Friend opposite and by Lord Fisher, and acquiesced in by the Government of the day.
Are we going to repeat that policy? Are we going to place ourselves again in that position? The hon. Member for Sheffield suggested just now it was good policy, because it would give the Government time to investigate all the circumstances and they would be able to find out what other countries are doing. Many hon. Members will remember that that was the excuse put forward by the late Liberal Government in 1909, when they waited to see what the Germans were doing, and some few years afterwards some of us had the mortification—in a certain political sense it might have been the pleasure—to see the present right hon. Member for Paisley, with Mr. McKenna and Lord Grey, come down to this House, and, standing in white sheets at that Front Bench, say, "We are sorry we did not know what Germany was doing; we admit we ought to have found out, and that we were paid for finding
out, but we did not find out." And then they asked the House to vote them a very much larger Navy Estimate. Of course, the followers of that Government did not like it, and it was with very great difficulty that the Estimates were got through.
Some other hon. Members say it is not necessary now to have new construction because we have a League of Nations in prospect. That is all very well. We may have it in prospect, but up to the present we have no League of Nations in existence, and I would venture to caution the Government against moving too quickly in cutting down their naval programme, or in abandoning new construction on the ground that there is to be a League of Nations. As Mr. Roosevelt once said, there is no piece of machinery which would do away with war, and to suggest that there is, is sheer nonsense and rank hypocrisy. The Prime Minister has reminded us that the League of Nations is only an experiment, and I would urge that we ought not to hazard the honour and safety of the country on the mere assumption that the League of Nations will do away with all wars. What about Australia and other outlying portions of the Empire? Are they pinning their faith to the League of Nations? I share the greatest regret with several hon. Members that we have not before us the Report of Admiral Jellicoe on his visit to Australia and Canada. I do not think, when these reports come in, it will be found there is any suggestion of suspending new construction in those places, and certainly not on the ground of the League of Nations. I remember speeches delivered in this country by Mr. Hughes, who was altogether opposed to depending too much on the League of Nations, and cutting down our Navy because there was a prospect of such a League coming into existence. Similarly the Acting Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia made a most important pronouncement on this question. He said:
The League of Nations might succeed, but might prove a beautiful dream, unsubstantial and transient. The British Nation cannot afford to awaken from that dream after losing supremacy of the sea. The Anglo-Celtic Empire must maintain the only form of insurance worth anything, a powerful, vigilant Navy, hacked by the full support and effort of the people's territories which it was designed to guard.
It is all very well for the First Lord to come down here and tell us that the
Germans are without a navy to-day, that a portion of their navy lies under the waters in Scapa Flow, and another portion has been distributed among the Allies. But I would remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is never tired of reminding us and the country that we are not yet out of the War, and are not yet at peace. No doubt, to my mind and to the minds of a good many people, the policy of Germany at the present moment is to scrap the Treaty, and the only way to prevent this is to maintain the power of the British Navy, for the power of blockade will prevent the Germans scrapping the Treaty. That will do what nothing else can do. That is what won the War, and then for the First Lord to come down and tell us at this time about the League of Nations, when the League is not even born, and to urge upon us to suspend all new construction, why I say it is tempting Providence and playing with the whole idea of the safety and security of this country and of the Empire. Again, the First Lord said that practically there was no naval power to-day that can offer us any serious opposition or, indeed, any threat, and he proceeded to indulge in what I think is the very undue optimism that we have no potential enemies. But I would remind the First Lord that the British Navy was built not for the purposes of offence, but for the purposes of defence. Three times the British Navy has saved this country from being dominated by a foreign power. It may be, and I hope it will be, that we shall never again be attacked. But that surely is not a sufficient reason for lowering our powers of defence by suspending new construction.
What is Japan doing? We heard from the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) last night that Japan has a large new construction programme and is building many capital ships. What is America doing? Mr. Daniels, the Secretary to the United States Navy, proposed to give what has been described in America as the largest navy in the world. He had a very large programme of new construction. I know that since his statement was made that programme has been negatived by the Naval Sub-Committee, and that America has reverted to the 1916 programme. But what was that programme? It provided for four battleships, four battle-cruisers, four scouts, and 20 destroyers. That, I take it, to be
the new construction programme of the United States for this year, and in three years it is proposed to spend on that programme alone £103,000,000. What are we doing? In the first place, we have no programme of new construction. If you look at the figures in the White Paper, you will see that the expenditure on new construction, whatever it may be, is very much under half a million sterling. We are told that the First Sea Lord acquiesces in this policy. If that be so, all I can say it that it is very different from what was said many months ago at Bristol, when he used these words:
We must remember that we are more dependent upon the sea and upon the protection of our great lines of communication with the outlying portions of the Empire than any other nation. Therefore we must expect to make greater provision than any other nation for our security.
I have told the Committee what Japan and America are doing. I submit we are not making greater provision than other nations for our security by cutting down the personnel of the Navy to a point lower than it stood at before the War, or by suspending the policy of new construction. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone held out a rosy prospect of what might come in the course of years when we would join up with America and have a joint Navy. I do not think I need go into that. I do not believe there is any great feeling in America which backs up that sentiment.
Now I come to the Colwyn Report. The Government admitted that they had some obligation to the men in the dockyards, and in order to fulfil those obligations they put forward a programme of new construction this year. The Government know that the dockyard towns are absolutely dependent on the Navy for their existence. The policy of the Government in the past with regard to dockyard towns, and especially with regard to Plymouth and Devonport, has been to disallow any extension that might have taken place in those parts on commercial lines. That being so, the Government owe very great consideration to these dockyard towns, which have no means of utilising the labour discharged from the dockyards, especially at Devonport, while the housing difficulty elsewhere will not permit men migrating with their families to other parts of the country, nor is there any reason to suppose that if they did so they would find work waiting for them
to do. As the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir S. Benn), in his most excellent speech, said: "You cannot turn these men out into the street." I agree with the hon. Member, you cannot turn them out into the street. You must do something for them. But what are you going to do? I am glad to hear that the Government have not yet finally decided that merchant ship building shall not be introduced into the dockyards. I understood from the Report, however, that that point had been finally decided. The Report, I believe, recommends that mercantile work be not given to the Royal dockyards unless rapidity and economy in construction are observed. But the Report goes on to say:
We are confident that the men will realise the position and co-operate to the fullest extent in making the endeavour a success.

Mr. WILKIE: And so they will.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The hon. Member ought to know. At any rate, the Report comes to the conclusion that the Admiralty should utilise the surplus facilities of these dockyards in the construction of mercantile vessels. Royal dockyards are equal to any private firms in the country. If you lay down a ship in a Royal dockyard on the same conditions as in a private yard, the men in the Royal dockyard will in all probability beat the men in the private yard. Let it not be forgotten that 14 years ago Portsmouth completed the original Dreadnought in one year from the time it was laid down. The North yard at Keyham has the best equipment, with machinery second to none, and it has, I believe, the largest crane in this country—one which can lift a weight of 180 tons. As regards economy of expenditure, take the ships of the "Queen Elizabeth" class, the largest class of ship that was built before the War. In Devonport Dockyard we built the "War-spite," which was constructed at a cost of £70,000 less than either of the three sister ships built in private yards. This does not look very much like a financial loss on building merchant ships in private yards. We are able at Devonport to build tankers quite as easily, economically and quickly and just as good as they can in private yards, and we can do exactly the same thing as regards any merchant ship the First Lord may think proper to have laid down. So, no doubt, it is in the other yards. As for men of
business experience in private yards, it is sheer nonsense. There is not a private yard in the country in which some of the chief officials did not serve their apprenticeship in a Royal yard. On the score of economy, rapidity of construction and efficiency of administration, the dockyards are equal to if they do not exceed the private yards. The Admiralty can have merchant ships built as quickly and cheaply as the private yards. Why, then, delay? Why does the right hon. Gentleman say, "We have not yet decided?" Why does he not say he will do his best to make them decide? Let him say-he will do his best to make the Government come to a decision. Let him come to the decision I ask him to do, namely, to build these merchant vessels in Government yards.
As regards the terminal port, I have had a letter from the Mayor and handed it on to the First Lord. What happened with regard to that I was never officially informed. We are told the thing practically came to an end. The Cunard Company has been mentioned. It does not follow that there are not other companies equally desirous of making Devonport a terminal port. I mention Devonport because it is mentioned in the report, not for any other reason. Why should not some other company endeavour to utilise the Keyham extension as a terminal port? We discharged during the War thirty-five ships in a week of the Canadian contingent—all the men and impedimenta. Surely, if we can do that, any ship that comes in there can soon discharge its goods and passengers, and there is a very good service to London on the Great Western line which will take them up and carry goods at as cheap a rate as any other. With regard to coal, you can get coal there by sea, and the more ships you build in Devonport Dockyard the more ships you will have to bring coal down there.
There are some subjects which the Members of the Dockyard Parliamentary Committee have brought before the notice of the Admiralty. First of all, there is the question of the Chief and Artificer Engineers. We had a very frank reply to our letter on their behalf, and I thank the Admiralty for restoring payment of the machinery allowance. As matters stand, the Chief Engine-room Artificer who is promoted to Artificer Engineer
suffers an actual diminution of pay instead of an increase. The suggestion we made was that this should be remedied by awarding each Artificer Engineer on promotion 3s. a day specialist-allowance. If that could not be accepted we suggested that the allowance to the engine-room artificer on account of his certificates, which is 2s. a day, need not stop as at present, and that an extra shilling on passing certificate to artificer engineer. The pay with allowances of chief engine-room artificer, 1st class, is 16s. 5d. per day. The pay of the engine-room artificer on promotion is only 16s. a day. Surely this is not what the Admiralty intended. I suggest that they reconsider their decision on this point and see if they cannot equalise the matter. I entirely agree with everything my hon. and gallant Friend (Viscount Curzon) said yesterday about school-masters, and I trust something will be done to increase their pay. All officers, with the exception of schoolmasters, have got an increase dating from February, 1919. Any increase of pay for schoolmasters should date from the same date, and the promotion of schoolmasters should be the same as for other branches of warrant officers, that is to say, commissioned rank after ten years. At present they have to serve 20 years before they get such promotion. As regards Royal Fleet Reserve B, could not the Admiralty do something to assist these men? Their retainer of 6d. a day should be increased to 1s. 6d., and it should be dated back to 1st October, 1918. The bonus of £50 they now receive on reaching 40 should be increased to £150, and instead of the pension, which is only £12, on reaching 55 it should be £36 given at 50. Then there is the matter of the naval cooks, which is now seven months old, and we have not yet received a reply.
It is scandalous to think that officers who were called up during the War should be deprived of their pensions. It was not the case with the Army officers. Navy officers were obliged to take 25 per cent. of their pay in lieu of their pension. I hope the Admiralty will reconsider that, and see if they cannot pay these men back. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me the other day, when talking about the pre-war pensioners, that they had made their bargain. Did not these men make their bargain? What are they getting for it? Nothing
at all. Their bargain was to have a pension for life, but they got no pension for life. It was taken away during the War. The State can break a bargain when it suits their purpose. The case of the Quartermasters, Royal Marines, is a very strong one. We have put it before the Admiralty on more than one occasion, and I hope something will be done. The Halsey Committee approved of several changes with regard to these men. They were to be called Maintenance Officers. They have not been called Maintenance Officers. They were to have their pay put up on the scale of other officers, but nothing has been done at all to carry out the views of the Halsey Committee on the point, and the time has arrived when this should be done. The Jerram Committee recommended that scales of pay should be antedated to men serving on 1st October, 1918. It is scandalous to think that a large number of men who were on the books in 1919 should not be given the same pay as other men who were serving at the same time. I would ask that the revised scale of pension should be applied to all pensioners now on the rolls. It is appalling to think that the average naval pensioner only gets 11s. 6d. a week. It is quite impossible for anyone to live on that. Widows' pensions are only 9s. a week. Surely the Admiralty can afford to pay a naval widow more than that. It is an absolute disgrace. No woman can possibly live on it, much less bring up children and possibly other persons dependent upon her.
I should like to say a word with regard to the food allowance. At home ports and certain naval establishments the ratings employed get what is known as a food allowance. Hitherto the same food allowance was given to officers and men. Last April the officers' allowance was increased to 5s., but the allowance to the ratings was kept at 2s. 1d, It should be the same in both cases. I hope it will be put right without any further delay. Let the men and the officers, so far as the food allowance goes, be placed on the same footing as they were before. With regard to the 22 years' service, many men are unable or do not complete their 23 years, though they very nearly do so, and they are deprived of their pension. When a man has completed 20 or 21 years he ought to have, at any rate, the greater part of it. I received a letter to-day from a man who served within seven days of
his time. It is a scandalous thing that he should be deprived of his pension. I join from the bottom of my heart in the opinions which have been expressed with regard to the Financial Secretary. He has occupied that position almost as long as I have been in the House. During that time the Dockyard Members' Committee has troubled him a very great deal with a great number of letters and applications, and he has always been most courteous and has done everything he possibly could to assist us. I am sure every Member who represents a dockyard borough will agree that on the innumerable times we have had to seek his advice and assistance it has always been freely given. How he can possibly find time to answer the enormous number of letters I alone have sent him, Heaven only knows, but he does. They sometimes come late, but they always come. I should like to join with others in thanking him for the services he has rendered, not only to us but to the House of Commons and the country at large, and the Navy and the dockyards in particular.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. WILKIE: The hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) represents a dockyard constituency. I represent, from another point of view, more dockyard men than he does, and men of the Royal Navy. While I have thousands of members in the dockyards, I have tons of thousands outside the dockyards. Therefore, I approach this question from quite a different point of view; not merely that of a Member for a dockyard constituency but from the national point of view.
I congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on his exhaustive statement; but I want to point out, with all due respect, that the views he put forward last night are very different from the views that he expressed when I entered this House, when the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the Prime Minister, when Admiralty matters were then discussed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the advancement he has made. Of course, since the War everything has changed. I was quite pleased to hear his statement last night. He said he was looking for possible enemies. On the other hand, may I suggest he might look for possible friends. I have always supported an efficient Navy, even at a time when many of his present supporters
were admitted opponents of it. I have stated in my constituency and in this House that as everyone believes in life insurance the best insurance policy that the nation can have is an efficient Navy to protect the national life. We have heard a great deal about all kinds of nationalisation. In certain respects I have been a nationaliser all my life, and I would point out that if it had not been for our national dockyards we should have had to pay through the nose for our warships. The Committee has heard about the armour-plate rings, and about the gun rings, which have been discussed many times in this House. They would have been prepared almost to build the ships for nothing if they could get their price for their guns and armour.
The Naval Lords, before the War, did not appreciate the power of the submarine. They were dressed up in all their uniforms on the quarter-decks of their great vessels at Rosyth and on every sea, and scoffed at the tiny crafts. I agree as has been pointed out by more than one speaker that wherever you found a British warship abroad it was an emblem of peace and an emblem of safety, and not of war and destruction. If the Lords of the Admiralty in those days before the War had really appreciated the power of the little mosquitoes of submarines we should not have been in some of our present difficulties.
The Government have been crying out for more production, but on the other hand their policy in the dockyards has been to discharge men by the thousands. Instead of doing that, they ought to give the workers a chance on the land here and in our colonics. They ought to adopt every possible means of getting out of mother earth all that she can produce. In other words, the policy should be to give to the poles the produce of the sun and knit all our far-flung commonwealths into one. According to the Statement of the First Lord, a considerable number of new schemes are being launched and they are costing very large sums of money. I do not complain if the things are absolutely necessary. I want an efficient Navy, because I believe this country and all our vast commonwealths and colonies depend on the British Navy. It is the link that binds us together, and those of us who have been abroad have discovered
that fact to our benefit and to the benefit of our country.
Almost every grade connected with the sailing of the ship, the driving power of the ship, and in connection with the feeding of the crew, are all mentioned in the Statement, but I have looked in vain for a single word about the Naval Architects and ship constructors, the men who put these ships into being. How many cases were there during the War where the ships and the lives of those on board were saved by the ship constructors? Yet they are not mentioned. The creators of the ships which our admirals and captains sail and which our engineering friends drive are not mentioned; yet when there is any danger or difficulty you have to go to the ship constructor and he has to save the life of the ship and of the men. During the War the "Lion" and the "Tiger" and a number of other ships were saved in a very short time. The enemy thought they were sending these ships down, but before they knew where they were they were back again in the North Sea opposing them. That work was done by the men I am referring to.
In regard to the discharges at the dockyards the worker cannot understand why while you are making provision for almost every other class they are being turned off. My society, at the cost of hundreds of pounds, assisted the Admiralty to get these men. The First Lord said that when the Admiralty were asked by the shipowners to let them have a number of shipwrights they allowed the men to go back. The bulk of those we sent had gone back before that. The men you are discharging are men with eight, ten, or more years of service in the dockyards. That is very unfair. These men ask you and the House of Commons and the country why they should be the only people to suffer from a change of policy. I know the Government are pressed to exercise economy. It is really economy to build the ships you require rather than to discharge skilled men and to let them walk the streets receiving unemployment allowance cither from their unions or from the State. Instead of the workers being the sufferers they ought to have the greatest sympathy from the Admiralty and from the Government, The Report of Lord Colwyn's Committee has been referred to. The First Lord dealt with this question
and he looks to the men to cooperate with him. I have had letters from several of the dockyards stating that the men are willing to co-operate with the Admiralty in the interests, not of any private profit, but in the interests of the country. That will pay the country far better than turning off the men. I have had information from Plymouth that the discharges are still going on, and that men with eight and ten years' service are being discharged and that there are no fewer than 6,000 unemployed men in Plymouth.
The parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) answered a question which I put to him on the 20th May, 1919. I asked him to state the number of auxiliary vessels, such as colliers, oil tankers, troopships, store vessels, also trawlers and drifters used as minesweepers and patrol boats, which were required to attend on the wants of the Navy during the War, and he answered that they required 4,274. If they needed then over 4,000 auxiliary vessels, surely they could go on building a few hundreds now. I do not want them to compete with private shipbuilders. They could build the ships that they require without competing with private builders. They could build all the colliers, all the tankers, all the troopships and the store vessels that are required. There would be no competition there. They know all that, and why cannot the Admiralty look ahead and build those ships at once for the needs of the Navy? "For the needs of the Navy" is a favourite phrase of the Financial Secretary; and the needs of the Navy include those auxiliary ships. That is work for you to do, instead of going to other people to have it done. On the question of whether the dockyards can do it or not, I say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kin-loch-Cooke) are entirely-justified. There is no difficulty in doing the work for the country. I hope that we shall hear no more of that terrible cry of "economy" which is false economy. I am an Economist myself, but—and I am not going to commit anybody else—I still hold that if we had not had an efficient fleet we should not be where we are to-day.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir Evan Jones) objected to the Government trading in any shape or form; but if you had had to depend on private enterprise during the War, where should we be?
Private enterprise has been a dismal failure, but while the hon. Member for Pembroke objects to Government trading yet where he is personally interested supports the Government in retaining Pembroke Dockyard for national trading. I do the same for different reasons, because I believe that Pembroke Dockyard is a national asset, which should be used for the good of the nation. But the hon. Member said that Rosyth should be scrapped as there was no further menace in the North. How does he know whether there will be no more menace or not? We do not know where it will be coming from the next time. Rosyth is one of the greatest assets which the nation has. If Scotland, by nature's law, is designed to be the northern part of these Islands, why should we suffer? Why should England, Wales and Ireland have dockyards and Scotland not have any? We are just as much entitled to one as they are. Some of us know why they have not been there before, and why the old Admiralty did not come to the north of England or Scotland for dockyards. But our shipyards there were the best asset which the nation had, and anybody who visited them during the War and saw the marvels of shipbuilding which were wrought there, must have felt that it was no wonder that we had the command of the North Sea.
The late Civil Lord (Mr. Lambert) and I opposed the scheme of the national dockyards at Chepstow, because it was initiated as an attempt to build vessels without skilled men. We had innumerable conferences on the subject. I was one of the representatives of the men. We pointed out that what was proposed could not be carried out, because there were certain parts of the ship which nobody but a trained craftsman could accomplish. We opposed also because there was a number of berths in His Majesty's dockyards and in the private yards which were doing nothing; those places had the machinery at hand and the men at hand, and we said that it would be more beneficial to the country to make use of them, whereas what you did was to take the highly-skilled men from those yards. They had to go, and the result was that you got nothing out of it. Of course there was an effort to throw it on to us, to induce us to take over the yard, but trade unionists know that that is not in their line of business.
But even the trained men of the Co-operative Association who have built and owned ships refused to have anything to do with it, because it was not on a sound principle. If the unemployed berths in the dockyards and in the private yards had been utilised we should have got some return, which was not got from the other places, and these new-yards would not have taken away so many skilled men who were required where they were.
On the 10th of November last year I asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a question about naval pensioners, the men who had returned to the yards at the request of the Admiralty and for their loyalty got their pensions stopped. The men feel very sore about this. It has not been done in the private yards or elsewhere, and it is not fair that they should have been treated so unjustly. I have supported him, and I shall support him every time he is on the doorstep of the Treasury. We are asking for fair play to these men in the interests of the Nation. On the 16th February this year he writes that steps are being taken to bring the matter further before the Treasury, and to point out the desirability of repealing Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, so that in future cases superannuation may not be discontinued. But "future cases" is not what we are interested in most at the moment. Those fellows have done their work, and you ought to honour the bill. The Admiralty profess to be model employers The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been asking more than any man in the House on that score. What we want them to do is to prove it by deeds and not by words.
I hope and believe that the new arrangement under the Whitley Councils will be the means of arranging differences between workmen and employers, where difficulties occur, by both parties meeting together in amicable conference, so that a friendly arrangement will be arrived at. The workmen trust that by the new council being set up they will be given the same power as they have outside to say what are to be the rates they receive for their work and the conditions under which they work. They do not ask much. They do not want to go into the office and control the Admiralty; but they want to have some
say in the disposal of their labour and their conditions of work.
I was more than pleased to hear the references of the First Lord to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). I do not know anything as to the truth of the rumours which have been in circulation. All I can say is that I shall be very sorry if they are true. But I may tell the Committee that I was in that Gallery when Mr. Alexander Macdonald and the right hon. Thomas Burt took their seats as the first two Labour Members of this House, and from then until now I have met First Lords and Civil Lords and Secretaries to the Admiralty all in my own official position as representative of the Shipwrights. So you will admit that I have had a little experience of these matters, and I have had even the modesty to suggest to a First Lord that we could do the work as well as anyone—though, of course, that is a matter of opinion. But I have met all these First Lords, and all the others, and, without flattery to my right hon. Friend, I may say that our experience was in reply to petition after petition not acceded to every year until the men felt that they were being unfairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman visited the yards, met the men, the foremen, and the managers, and brought them all together, just as he did on the Tyne and the Clyde during the War, when the work he did in the interests of the country was invaluable, I render homage where it is due.
Even this week he met a deputation which, if it had not been met, might have caused a lot of unnecessary trouble. We did not expect to get all we wanted. What the right hon. Gentlemen did was to smooth over the difficulties and to satisfy the deputation that whatever was done there would be fair play to those who were complaining. I thank the Committee for this chance they have given me of putting the case of the shipyard worker. I dare say I shall be the only speaker whose university has been the shipyard. Much has been said at different times as to the attitude of the trade unions towards men who have returned from the War. There is not a disabled man of ours whom we have not helped with work or with artificial limbs. Statements have been made that certain organised trades have been against those who have made sacrifices in the War. I say that such cases are very
few. Of course, these organisations have to look to the men who stayed at home at the bench as well as to those who went into the trenches. All that is desired is an equitable arrangement, and I am satisfied that every trade organisation in the country will assist the Ministry of Labour to employ all men possible.

Mr. HOHLER: I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker in regard to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity of congratulating him on the way he has carried out the duties of his Office. I am glad to think that I have had the pleasure of offering such congratulations not only in this House, but outside it, and I wish him well in the new Office he is about to fill. In regard to the Estimates I was really amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield and his references to the armament firms. I have been puzzling my brain to find under which head of the Estimates that particular subject comes, and the only appropriate one I could find is "Contributions in aid of religious, charitable, and other institutions." Whatever the sum is, I think it requires some, justification. They made money out of us right and left, and I should like to know what the dividends of the firm are.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Vote is on page 66 of the Estimate. It is Vote 8, sub-head ii, L, "Subsidy to armament firms for maintaining plant, etc."

Mr. HOHLER: I respectfully submit to the Admiralty that that is an item which requires very careful consideration. They have been paid for it over and over again. I ask the Admiralty to consider whether it cannot come on later in the financial year as an Appropriation in Aid. We were given to understand that they were patriotic people. Let them set an example to others. There is one other point on which I wish to call the attention of the First Lord, and that is in reference to the Admiralty Office. The sum involved is, in round figures, £1,500,000. Before the War it was about £500,000. Last year in his written statement I recollect that the First Lord told us it was in process of reduction, or that he hoped to reduce it. For that office to be incurring an expenditure of £1,500,000 seems to me excessive. It is impossible for me to put a finger on a certain point and to say, "There you can
get rid of them," but I am satisfied that with the goodwill the First Lord has shown with regard to other matters affecting his estimates, something could be done to get rid of these temporary clerks, boys, messengers and the like, and other officers, to bring the Department down to something like its expenditure before the War. With regard to dockyards, there is very little I have to say. Everybody knows that I am a dockyards Member. The Members for the dockyards asked for a deputation to be received by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister received them, and the First Lord was there with the Financial Secretary and Admiral Power. The Prime Minister made to us a statement which was satisfactory to everyone concerned, and I know he made it after consultation with the First Lord and the Financial Secretary, because they withdrew for that purpose. We rely upon that, and I do not believe he is going to play us false. I shall, therefore, say no more about the dockyards. They are all equally deserving or, in the view of some, equally undeserving. If I wished to say a word for Chatham I think honestly I could. All I would add is, do not let us quarrel amongst ourselves. Of course I have one or two grievances. I again bring to the notice of the First Lord the long-delayed decision under the Jerram Report. I think it is Clause 48. Many of these men who were invalided before they had served for pension have died. There is also the case of the old naval pensioner. I know it is part of a larger question which has been raised in regard to all these pensioners—old soldier pensioners and civil service pensioners of every class. The other night it was raised in regard to the police, and the Home Secretary in that Debate, I believe, held out the expectation that in necessitous cases relief would be given, and relying on that promise, I voted for the Government. I am satisfied that the Government will endeavour to do what is just. I hope something will be done shortly, because there are grievous cases, and they affect not one class only, but a number of classes.
I want to call attention also to the question of the Royal Marines. I think I have only to state the case of one branch—only 200 are concerned—to satisfy the First Lord and the Financial Secretary that I am right. The point is this: In
1915 the Admiralty created a new class of warrant officer (Warrant Officer, Class 2). In this connection there was issued Admiralty Weekly Order, No. 10, Institution of Rank of Warrant Officer, Class 2, dated 7th January, 1916. Under that Order certain ratings were created Warrant Officers, Class 2. They were given improved pay and, what is much more important, improved pensions. They were promised an improved pension of 2d. a day on being discharged for pension. I have looked through the Jerram Report and they are not dealt with. I have looked through the Halsey Report and they are not dealt with. I find they are being discharged to pension at only three halfpence a day increase. The only other Order that ever dealt with them was Admiralty Weekly Order, No 2483, Naval Officers Pay, Retired Pay and Allowances. It stated:
No more warrant officers, Class 2, will be made, and the present officers of this class will be allowed to die out as the case occurs. Their successors will rank with and receive pay of chief petty officers of the Royal Navy with eight years' seniority.
You created the rank, and you have never dealt with them since, and you retire them with an additional 1½d. instead of the 2d. which was promised. I think that case has only to be stated to demand attention. A further injustice in connection with these men is the Order prohibiting them from joining the Royal Fleet Reserve. By General Order 220, of December, 1919, Royal Marines holding the rank of warrant officer, class 2, or staff-sergeant, are ineligible for enrolment in the Royal Fleet Reserve. That has the result of preventing these men getting an additional 5d. at the age of 30, which is the equivalent of the Greenwich pension for those who join the Royal Fleet Reserve, and they have to wait until they are 55 before they receive it. If it is too late for the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the matter, as he may have gone to another office, I hope it is one that will not be lost sight of, and that these men will be given the rights to which I submit they are fairly and justly entitled. The Royal Marines, which I regret to say, seems to be rather neglected.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no.

Mr. HOHLER: I will not say neglected, because I know the family connections
my right hon. Friend has with that gallant corps. I will put it that their case is not always stated. Let me refer to the position of quartermasters, lieutenants, captains, and majors. They used to receive their pay on the Army scale, and had they remained in the Army and retired on pension, that, in the case of a major, would on the Army scale be about £450 per year. They asked under the Jerram and Halsey Reports to be transferred to the Navy for the purpose of pay and pension because it is more favourable for them. In paragraph 19 of the Halsey Report that was approved, that they should receive the same pay as commissioned warrant officers who had risen from the ranks in the Navy, and also by a later paragraph that they should on retirement receive the same retired pay as officers of the Navy. In the Navy, except in one case, ail officers receive like pay and that was promised. What the Admiralty has done must have been done inadvertently, and it cannot have been noticed what the promises made to these men were. There are two classes of these men. One class I may call, without any disrespect, rankers who have risen through the ratings to commissioned rank. There is the man who rises by long and zealous service, and another class of man who rises through gallant or meritorious service. The quartermasters asked to be put in the same position as the men who rise by gallant and meritorious service, and that was approved. They then asked for the same pension, and that was approved. When you come to settle the matter, instead of giving thorn the pay of other officers, which they asked and which you approve, you only give them the retired pay of the naval officer who has risen by long and zealous service. An injustice is clearly being done and I ask that it should be remedied. I have referred to these matters in some detail, and I am sure the members of the Committee appreciate how much these pensions mean to these men. I feel sure ray right hon. Friend will find, if he looks into my statements, that they are right and my arguments are sound, and I trust that they will receive early attention.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like at once to say on behalf of the Board of Admiralty how much we appreciate the reception generally given by the House yesterday and the Committee to day to
these Estimates. They do indeed represent—I can assure the Committee—continuous and painstaking effort on behalf of the Admiralty, from the hour the bells rang in the Armistice down to the present time, to bring War expansion back to Peace necessities. Let the Committee look again for a moment at what has been accomplished. Our net expenditure for 1918–19 (the final War year) was £334,000,000, and for last year, 1919–20, though many demands were made upon the Navy in several seas, we got down to £158,000,000. The present Estimates propose a nett expenditure of £84,000,000, and between a fourth and a fifth of that is dead weight war liability, which does not contribute a farthing to the maintenance of the year 1920–21. As regards the remainder, when you have taken away the dead weight liability you must divide it by at least two to get the pre-War standard of money value. Now let us look at the numbers—Naval and Civil; and the latter will deal with the point raised as to the Admiralty Offices. On 11th November, 1918, there were on the Active Service List of the Royal Navy 407,316 officers and men. On 1st April, 1919, the number was 273,400, and by the first day of next month we shall have got the number down to 136,000.
Apart from the personnel of the Royal Navy, at the Armistice we had 105,000 industrial employés in the dockyards and home establishments—and to-day we have about 72,000. At the Armistice, our staff at Headquarters (and this includes the Admiralty offices, numbered 10,637—and to-day they number about 5,400. That staff had to deal with the payment of gratuities and all the incidents involved in demobilisation, and cancelling of contracts and work of a character involving many poor people, and which, if delayed would mean great hardship to them. When you think of the volume of that work, performed in a welter of difficulties by a staff reduced from 10,637 to 5,400, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) will acknowledge that it is satisfactory. Our staff at the Armistice, other than Headquarters' staff—I mean the clerical staffs of the Royal Dockyards—numbered 9,800; and to-day they number about 5,000. I am sure the Committee will be interested to hear one or two other facts. At the Armistice the number of hired vessels of all kinds on naval service was 3,870; and to-day they
number 300, mostly trawlers and drifters, of which the bulk are in process of release to their owners—when reconditioned. As a matter of fact, since the Armistice we have reconditioned and returned to commercial service 2,264 trawlers and drifters. Since the Armistice, we have realised by the sale of ships, old ships and commercial ships, well over three and a half millions of money, and we have sold or transferred to the Disposals Board over £10,000,000 worth of property other than ships.
7.0 P.M.
I have mentioned these detailed facts because behind them lie unremitting care and unremitting watchfulness on the part of a body of public servants who were compelled to pass without intermission from the long strain of war to the laborious day-by-day task of getting expenditure back to the normal. For them 1919 was a very heavy year, and it was with very great pleasure I heard the frank tribute paid to our administration yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), and heard that tribute to hard-working officials endorsed by the House generally. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Moulton (Mr. Lambert) was severe on the modifications we have made in the scheme of common entry and training for officers. Like him, I was in that almost from its birth. Successive boards in 16 years—as he knows—and as a matter of fact 46 boards in all, have watched the working of that system, Lord Fisher's original system of 1903, with a single eye to the efficiency of the service. Now its ultimate modification was rendered necessary because during the War we could not get sufficient officers to volunteer for the Engineer Branch. A Committee was set up, consisting of Lord Jellicoe, Mr. McKenna (who had been First Lord at the Admiralty), and an engineer officer, Vice-Admiral Sir George Goodwin. They examined in 1918 the whole question very carefully, and certain proposals were adopted, and in September, 1919, the matter was again carefully considered and proposals were ultimately adopted. My right hon. Friend says that we have departed from the principle of common training, but the fact is that under this modification we have retained the great advantages of common entry and common initial training on shore and in the training battleship.
This means that the deck officers and engine-room officers throughout their careers have a basis of fellowship and sympathy which come from serving together in their early days, as we see among those who have been together in the same Public School. But it recognises this fact, which is accepted by all sea officers, and it is accepted, I think, all round.
I do not pretend to be a sailor any more than my right hon. Friend, but I have been told by those who have to serve upon warships that, owing to modern requirements, the work is much more strenuous now, whether in the case of the deck officer or the engineer officer, than it was in 1903 when Lord Fisher initiated this scheme, and that it is impossible to expect young officers as a whole to absorb the training for both sides up to the rank of Lieutenant. This modification has been made in Lord Fisher's scheme. No one is more loyal to his old colleagues than my right hon. Friend. There are, he says, objections to these modifications, but hard necessity has made us do it, and we claim that we are not by that reducing the status of the engineer officer. What has been said is that it will not now be possible for an Engineer-Admiral to fly his flag at sea that it was possible before, but it is not possible now. I want to speak with the greatest respect of the engineer officers. One doss not want to speak in disparagement of any branch of the Service, and least of all of them, but I really think I am entitled to ask this question: Does anyone pretend that an Engineer-Admiral could really fly his flag at sea under the original scheme. I do not think it was ever possible. It has never taken place so far as I am aware. I may be told that sufficient time has not "lapsed, but I am not aware that it has ever yet taken place. My hon. Friend has said that that possibility ought to have been retained.

Mr. LAMBERT: The First Lord of the Admiralty said yesterday that you had not sufficient engineer officers. How could you get them if you propose to reduce their status?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not arguing that. I am putting forward this proposition, that we are not reducing their status. We have never intended to reduce their status. The only point is that under
the Fisher scheme it was theoretically possible that an Engineer-Admiral could fly his flag at sea, but that it is not now possible, and I say that if it was possible it has never been done. I regret that I should have to cross swords upon an expert question like this with my hon. Friend. I come now to the question of the dockyards.
The Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and the Members for Drake (Sir A. Shirley Benn), Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and Chatham (Mr. Hohler) have called attention to the question of the dockyards. On that matter we are all of the one mind. We share the anxiety to avoid, if it be humanly possible, the hardship that will devolve upon these men, these loyal men, and their wives and children, by their discharge. The matter has not been out of my mind for many hours together since the Armistice. I know these men to be most loyal men, who did great service to the country during the War. The memory of that service will stand to the credit of the Royal Dockyards for a long time, even if there was nothing else. But the question is this: The dockyards exist for the Fleet. Upon its size, its new construction, and repair requirements depend the numbers to be employed in the Royal Dockyards. During the War we had a very large number of men charged on Naval Votes 8–1 and 2. There was a great expansion, not only at the old dockyards, but at Rosyth, where there was a new yard. And, of course, we must come down from the effort and level of the War. We have come down a long way already, and, looking at the needs of the post-War Fleet, we must come down below pre-War level so far as naval work is concerned. Take the year 1914–1915. We had, on the Estimates, 43,000 shipyard workers, and we provided £4,549,443 for new construction and repairs in the dockyards, labour and material. To-day we have 57,500 shipyard workers and the money that is provided for 1920–21 is £9,443,500, representing the needs of the Fleet. That money represents less than half the purchasing value of 1914. Well! There it is. In order to avoid discharges we brought forward the work of repair, refit and reconditioning which would otherwise have been spread over a longer time. That was to prevent large discharges during the winter. We considered what
would happen when it ended, as it will shortly. The Colwyn Committee, on which were four representatives of the employees' side of the Industrial Council, considered the matter and gave admirable advice. The Committee was appointed to consider the feasibility of work other than naval work being done in the naval dockyards in the form of merchant construction. They said:
We recommend that the Admiralty should utilise their-surplus facilities in the construction of mercantile vessels. The concentration on these vessels by the building yards would release sufficient repair and reconditioning work to keep the other dockyards in employment. We do not regard this as a permanent solution of the difficulty, nor recommend that this should be carried on indefinitely. The future of the shipbuilding trade is uncertain and offers no guarantee of a long era of construction. But we consider that this proposal offers to the Admiralty an expedient for tiding over a difficult period of distress, and the Committee hope and expect that in the present position of shipping trade the Admiralty will be able to build without any loss.
In pursuance of that we set up machinery for carrying on the mercantile work referred to, so that it could be done upon expeditious, simple, short-circuited lines and at the least expense. This work that we have pushed forward, the naval work, is now coming to an end, and we are getting ready to go on with this other work. There is first of all a 10,000-ton oil tank vessel, and we are getting ready to deal with that at Devonport. We have set up an Expert Committee to deal with the accounts, which we think is an improvement upon those required by the Public Accounts Committee and so on. For that tank steamer we are obtaining the material and we will lay down the vessel as soon as possible. Then there is another oil tanker, or mercantile vessel, which is to be constructed at Pembroke. The manufacture of the machinery for these two vessels will be divided between the yards at Portsmouth and Chatham and Devonport. These vessels will be built to the account of the Admiralty. Then there is the question of laying down an oil carrier, or a merchant ship, at Portsmouth and Chatham. That is being examined. We also examined the proposal which came from a reputable firm, to lease the Pembroke dockyard. It was also suggested that we should sell some of them by my right hon. Friend; but we had this offer to lease Pembroke for merchant ship construction,
but we found ourselves in this difficulty. We have 3,000 men in employment there; of these, 900 are established pensionable Civil Servants, and the other 2,100 are hired. We could get the firm to agree to take over the hired men and give them continuous employment. The difficulty arose with regard to the "00 established men, and what should be done with them. We should have had to say, "Either you can have your pension paid off and then go into the employment of this private firm"—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Hired men do not have pensions.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I was speaking of the 900 established men There were, as I said, 2,100 hired men, and, if we had decided to lease the yard, a condition we should have laid down would have been that the lessee should take them over and give them employment under the conditions obtaining in the industry. Then I went on to deal with the established men. We had to give them the alternative of being paid off and their services transferred, not with such an assurance of continuous employment as they would have as established men with us, but under the ordinary conditions, or of being transferred to one of the other yards. We should have had at least 600 of those men who would have said they wanted to be transferred, and we should have had to transfer those 600 men to other yards, where we were already making reductions, and to localities in which there is an acute housing problem. We therefore could not do it, and we declined the invitation that we should lease that yard, and met the situation for the time being with this 10,000-ton oil tanker The future of those yards calls for very anxious consideration.

Sir SHIRLEY BENN: Have not the Government had offers as to steamers being built by them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The point put by my hon. Friend is a perplexing one, and my hon. Friends on the Labour benches will see our difficulty much better than hon. Members in other parts of the House, unless there should be shipbuilders in those parts. We had an offer from the Co-operative Society of Plymouth to build a collier, and we said that we could not do that. At the same time we were discharging men. That is what people
cannot understand. The fact is that the building of a warship is one thing, and the building of a merchant ship is another thing. For the building of a warship you want a balance of trades not at all comparable with that which is necessary in the case of a merchant ship. In the building of a warship there must be a disproportion on the engineering side and on the electrical side, and there is not the proportion on the constructive side that would be required for the building of a merchant ship. Supposing that we had accepted this offer, we should have been in the position of having to take on more ship constructors, if we could have got them, and that is very doubtful, in a town where already there was an acute housing problem; and we should have had at the same time to go on dismissing men on the engineering and electrical side.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would not that point be met if there were something in the nature of dilution of labour? Are not the men of Devonport willing?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I myself put yesterday afternoon to a deputation a proposition as to what might be done in that direction. Here is a shortage on the ship construction side, and to take that collier we should have to increase the ship constructors by taking new men in. That is out of the question, first of all because it is very doubtful whether we could get them, and secondly because we could not house them if we could get them. Sup-posing, on the other hand, that the men on the engineering and electrical sides got together through their Yard Committee, which they have now in Devon-port under the Whitley scheme, and said, "This is not dilution, it is setting aside the demarcation rules." I am sorry to correct the hon. Member for Sutton, but that is another thing.

Viscountess ASTOR: I meant that.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Supposing they got together and said that, although those skilled men were not precisely ship constructors, yet they could do a good deal of the work pretty well, and they should not suffer any reduction in wage by any transfer or interchangeability, it might be possible to make up the necessary balance of ship constructors, and, if there is a slip available,
subject to what the First Lord may say, I do not think that there would be any difficulty whatever.

Mr. LONG: indicated assent.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I knew my right hon. Friend would concur. If there were plenty of appliances, and if the men among themselves will agree, in this emergency, to set aside the demarcation rules, and make up amongst themselves— so as to give sufficient work, of course—the proper balance on the construction side, they might have that collier, and my hon. Friend will be entirely happy.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, Hear!

Dr. MACNAMARA: I made that suggestion yesterday afternoon, as my hon. Friend knows. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) referred, under Vote 10, to expenditure on New Works, Additions, and Alterations, and he said, in effect: "With all this reduction, why do you want to go on building new works, alterations, etc.?" He referred particularly to the expenditure on oil fuel storage accommodation. If I remember rightly he mentioned millions, but they will not be spent in 1920–21.

Mr. LAMBERT: We are now commencing the liabilities which will compel us to spend £2,500,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The total provision in this Estimate is £653,850, ultimately leading up, of course, to a much larger expenditure when complete. It has been a matter for most careful consideration as to how low we could get it down. The Navy now includes a considerable number of oil-burning ships, and, of course, nearly the whole of the oil that they burn has to be brought from foreign countries. Therefore, unless the Fleet, in time of emergency, is to be dependent upon foreign fuel, we must make due provision for oil fuel accommodation at the naval ports of this country. That is clear, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that that figure has been cut down as low as is possible consistently with the future needs of the Fleet.
Then, I think, my right hon. Friend asked why we wanted to spend money on new works at Portsmouth. There is, as
of course he knows, at Portsmouth the "Vernon," an old and troublesome hulk which takes a lot of expenditure to maintain. We are going to provide, in place of the "Vernon," a shore establishment, for which we have put down £245,300 in those Estimates, as the torpedo training school for the Navy. I think I need not recall to my right hon. Friend the condition of the "Vernon" and the great desirability of getting these men and their officers on shore, with proper accommodation for the work they have to do. I think he will agree that it is about time—indeed the time is long overdue—for the "Vernon" to be set aside, and for this particular school to be taken ashore.

The question of the grievances of ships' cooks, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), has been under consideration for some time past. The Board appointed a small committee in July lust to investigate, amongst other things, the working hours, leave arrangements, and complements of cook ratings in harbour ships, etc., and that Committee will, it is expected, report at an early date. In addition to that, various other grievances of ships' cooks have been dealt with by the Welfare Committee, from whom we have already had a very voluminous report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham referred to the case of warrant officers, Class II., and of quartermasters in the Royal Marines. I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to write him fully the justification for the decisions which have been taken on those matters. I do not quite follow his case with regard to quartermasters in the Royal Marines. I cannot imagine that we departed from the decision approved on the Jerram Report, but I will look into the matter again and write to my hon. Friend.

There are several matters of great interest to the men in the Fleet which have been before us for, I am sorry to say, a very long time, and concerning these we are now in a position to make certain announcements. First of all, there is what we call "Jerram 48," which has been pressed upon us from all sides of the House ever since the publication of the original Jerram White Paper. In the original Jerram White Paper, Decision No. 51 raised the basic rate for the long-service pensioner of 22 years
from ½d. a day for each year of service to 1½ a day. Decision No. 48 was:
Men invalided to be awarded pensions in respect of length of service apart from any award in respect of disability.

On that we announced that the Admiralty were examining this question with a view to a further announcement. We formulated our proposals to cover Decision No. 48 and sent them to the Ministry of Pensions and the Treasury, and I am glad to say that we have now approval for certain increases in the allowances for service terminated by invalidity during or arising out of the War and before completion of the 22 years. These are as follows: In attributable cases, after ten years, the pension is 7s. a week, as against 3s. 6d. at present; after 14 years it is 8s., as against 3s. 6d.; after 15 years 8s., as against 4s. 8d.; after 16 years 9s., as against 4s. 8d.; after 18 years 10s., as against 5s. 3d.; and after 20 years 11s., as against 5s. 3d. In addition to these rates there is the full disablement scale, partial or total.

Mr. HOHLER: The hon. Gentleman uses the word "attributable". Has he adopted this phraseology as the word used in the Pension Warrants for disability pensions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. That is to say, in saying "Yes," I knew what my hon. and learned Friend was putting, but I think he had better give notice of that question. I think that is so. In regard to the attributable cases, the addition to these improved rates for the service side of the men's pension, there is, as I say, a full disablement scale, partial or total. In non-attributable cases, after 10 years it will be 7s. a week, as against 3s. 6d. formerly; after 14 years 10s. 6d., against 3s. 6d.; after 15 years 10s. 6d., against 4s. 8d.; after 16 years 12s. 3d., against 4s. 8d.; after 18 years 14s., against;5s. 3d. and after 20 years 17s. 6d., against 5s. 3d. In these non-attributable cases there is no addition, of course, in respect of disablement. There will be the usual additions for rank, badges and medal according to the new service scale, both in regard to attributable and non-attributable cases, and these increases will date as from the 1st April, 1919. I am very glad, indeed, to get that rather long-continued problem settled. Now, in regard to the naval schoolmasters, their pay was dealt with by the Jerram-Halsey Committee, and
the Government decision on that was that as the pay of the naval schoolmasters had been considered and increased at the end of 1918, and as they had received an ad interim bonus on the 1st February, 1919, their rates compared favourably with the salaries of teachers in civil life.

Commander Viscount CURZON: That applies also to all classes of warrant officers.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I know, but I am giving my Noble Friend the decision, and therefore it was resolved that they must stay as they were. I have admitted that they are the only class of warrant officers who did not get an increase. Many representations have since been made to us, by Members of the House and others, and we are forced to the conclusion that the pay offered is not adequate to attract the type of man required. We have, therefore, pressed for the grant to the schoolmaster branch of the rates of pay proposed by the Jerram-Halsey Committee. My hon. Friends will find them in the second last column, page 15, of Command Paper 270. We have modified them slightly, but not seriously, and they have now been agreed, and I am very glad indeed to be able to say so. But I am not in a position to say what date this decision will take effect from, as that has not yet been decided.
There is one other matter, and that is in regard to the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B, which several of my hon. Friends have pressed upon us from time to time. We saw a deputation on the 14th November, the Fourth Sea Lord and myself, of representatives of the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B. They put a number of requests before us. They are not all met now, but they have been carefully considered by the Board, our recommendations have gone to the Treasury, and I am now in a position to say what are the decisions upon them. The first is that the peace retainer will stay as it is. As regards the gratuity in the case of the Royal Fleet Reserve men, Class B, who served during the War, or were exempted from war service to remain in their civil employment under the Government, and who have since qualified for the gratuity, the original gratuity of £50 will be increased by £10 for men discharged in 1914, after the
commencement of the War, and by an additional £10 for men discharged in each succeeding year, subject to a maximum increase of £50. That means that the majority of these men will get a gratuity of £100. The full increase of £50 will be granted to all Royal Fleet Reserve men, Class B, who qualify in future. In the second place, it has been decided that the Royal Fleet Reserve pension shall be increased from £12 to £24 for those who were enrolled prior to the 1st April, 1906. In the third place— and I am very glad that this has been decided, because I know how much store these men set upon it—a long-service medal will be awarded to all Royal Fleet Reservists who have completed 15 years' active and reserve service, and who have satisfactorily performed the training required by the Regulations, with character never below "Very good" during the last fifteen years, or never below "Good" since the age of 18, provided such men are in possession of the maximum number of badges for which they were eligible during active service, and are without the Royal Naval long service, etc., medal. The Royal Fleet Reserve medal will not carry with it any monetary benefits. There are certain medals which do, but this is not one of those. Fourthly, the gratuity at present awarded on invaliding from the Royal Navy is deducted in the case of men who enrolled in the Royal Fleet Reserve after the 31st March, 1906, from the Royal Fleet Reserve gratuity when earned. This deduction is to cease, and abatements which have been made from men who have served during the War will be refunded. Fifthly, in the case of men invalided who have not completed full time for gratuity, proportionate benefits will be awarded in future at the rate of £5 for each completed year of man's service in the Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Reserve. All these things, which are very detailed, will be promulgated in Orders. The decisions which I have announced do not at all cover what the men asked, but we have given careful consideration to them, and these are the decisions which we have come to.
One other matter which has been before us ever since the Jerram Report is the question of petty officers' rig. The original Jerram Committee recommended that "Fore and Aft" rig should be adopted for petty officers. The men pressed this proposal, and they pressed
it for a very simple reason and a very good reason, namely, that they might receive the reasonable consideration due to their responsibilities, a consideration by no means invariably accorded by those unacquainted with their naval status. The matter has been very carefully considered by the Board, and it has been decided that all petty officers over four years' seniority will in future be dressed in "Fore and Aft" rig, with gilt buttons, and will wear the badge now worn by chief petty officers, for whom a new badge is being devised. I must apologise to the Committee for the length of this speech, but these are matters which have been a Long time before us, and I am very glad that they have been settled.
I should like gratefully to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton and the First Lord, and my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Maidstone, Hull, Devonport, Dundee, and Chatham, for their far too generous references to myself. After all, it is a fine thing and a great thing to be associated with the British Navy. It is a fine thing and a great thing to work day by day for 12 years with men whose first though, whose last thought, is the higher efficiency of the great Service to which they belong. It is a fine thing and a great thing to catch the spirit of the Navy, the spirit of true comradeship between officers and men of all ranks and ratings. It is a line thing and a great thing to see at the heart of everything, and inspiring everything, this splendid creed, that strength is given us for the protection of the weak, and must never be used for the oppression of the feeble and the down-trodden.

Viscountess ASTOR: I will not keep the Committee very long, because there are so many Members who want to speak about the Navy, but I would like to say one thing to the First Lord, and that is about the Colwyn Report. I do not think that has been made quite clear by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He said we are going to build an oil tanker and that then we will build a collier, but that is not the only thing the Colwyn Report said. I am sorry to take up Navy time talking about dockyard questions, but although I do not represent Devonport, a great many of the dockyard men reside in my constituency, and I will frankly say that I am talking
for my constituency. But in talking for my constituency, I am talking for a national thing, for, after all, Plymouth greatly represents the Navy, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the Navy puts service ahead of everything. The Colwyn Report said they considered that the dockyards, particularly Plymouth, should be used for something else besides building the Navy, but I do not see that either the First Lord or the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has answered the question. Are we going to throw them open for building other ships? That is what they are pressing for from Plymouth. Are they going to do it? They set up the Colwyn Report; do they mean to put it in action, or do they not? The whole of Plymouth is excited over this, and quite rightly so, because the lives of thousands of women and children depend on it. I deeply regret that Plymouth was not as wise as Chatham. They ought to have accepted the Government's proposal of five days a week instead of six. That was not my fault, but it was the fault of some of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Labour Benches, and I might say that it gave me great pleasure to hear a Labour Member speak of the Navy. They do not speak of it enough, when their lives, and our lives, and indeed the civilisation of the world depend on the British Navy.
But to return to my point in regard to the Colwyn Report, do you mean, or do you not, to give us a chance? I know you cannot go on building against an enemy which you have not got. I do not think that is right, and I do not think anybody wants to do it. I am certain that nobody in England will ever want the British Navy to be second to any. It is all very well other countries talking, but they will never really be able to have a Navy, because they will not get the men. It is an inherited thing, and everybody knows it. The United States of America saw it when they came to Plymouth, and you might almost say that the sea belongs to England, and it could not be in better or safer hands. So I do not take the view that you have to keep on building against an enemy. I am perfectly certain the United States will never build against England. It would be perfectly stupid if they did. To come back to the Colwyn Report, what do you mean to do? It is really vital.

Mr. LONG: We have told you.

Viscountess ASTOR: You said that you are going to build a tanker. Are you going to keep Plymouth not only for naval but for merchant ships? What is going around Plymouth now? They are saying that the reason the Government will not take action is that they are keeping a slip empty because they want to see what the European situation is going to be. That is being said quite freely among the men. It is said that the Government do not mind the discharges, they are not adopting the Colwyn Report, they are not even encouraging private shipbuilders, and they do not mean to build ships themselves. That is what they are saying. It may not be true—I hope to goodness it is not. The dockyardsmen at Plymouth are ready. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) as said that they build better for public ownership. As a matter of fact they will build for anything, private or public, they are so hard pushed. There are 6,000 men unemployed in Devonport, so that if you are only going to build one oil tanker I implore you to give the chance to private firms to come in and help the situation. It is really appalling. I do not know that I ought to speak about so local a matter, but I am bound to speak because things are getting worse day by day. I am not really satisfied with the statements of the First Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary. What really are you going to do? I want to speak about pensions. I am rather shocked at seeing the few Members there are in the House when it comes to discussing the Navy. I was horrified all yesterday and to-day. You say you have not carried out the Jerram Report, but I do ask that so far as the pensions of widows and dependents are concerned, the Admiralty will give what is asked for. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the Jerram Report in full. I know what the state of the Navy was when the Jerram Committee was set up, I know from the lower deck men's point of view. I hope the country will ever be grateful to Admiral Jerram for his splendid work for the Navy, England and the Empire, and I beg the Admiralty to listen to him. At Plymouth they are getting very restless, and they do hope now you will give them a chance. Do not be a dog in the manger. If you cannot use it for the
Navy then open it to the private shipbuilders. It is too expensive to keep idle. You have a slip there; I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept that collier.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be quite delighted, but will the men agree? By all means, if they will set aside demarcation.

Viscountess ASTOR: I quite agree, and I think the men will. I am perfectly certain the men's wives will. The men's wives thoroughly regret that the dockyard men did not take my advice, instead of the advice that was given them in other quarters, but I think they will meet you on that point. I am proud and pleased to join in with the other hon. Members in what they said about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who is apparently going to leave us, though I hope he will not. I should like to pay a tribute to him. I have heard some of the men of the lower deck rage against him. They did not realise it was the Treasury and not the right hon. Gentleman. After they found out, they were the first to give him due credit for all he has done for them. I am most grateful to him for the wonderful way in which he answers all the criticisms, but there will be even more gratitude in the Navy if he gets the Jerram Report in full carried out before he leaves the Admiralty, because when you leave it we do not know what we are going to get. You know the conditions and are sympathetic.

The CHAIRMAN: I really must remind the hon. Member that we do not say "You, you" across the floor of the House. All remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

Viscountess ASTOR: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I am not speaking, perhaps, as well as I should, because I am so conscious of the hon. Member behind wanting to speak. It is very upsetting to have to speak when yon know there are Members behind longing for you to sit down. May I ask again, what are you going to do about the Colwyn Report? Do not be a dog in the manger.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I am sure we all listened with a great deal of satisfaction to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As a new Member of the House, I have not had that experience
of him in relation to Admiralty and naval matters as other Members of the House, but I might also bear my testimony to his courtesy, not merely to me as a new Member of the House when I have been in communication with him, but also in his past dealings in relation to the organisation with which I was connected and which caused me to meet him on several occasions. On that ground, and also because of the courteous replies I have always received to any of my communications, I join with right hon. and hon. Members in wishing him the best of success in any new position he may take up. I want to say one or two words in relation to something that has already been mentioned, and a few words in relation to something that has not yet been referred to. Although I do not represent a naval dockyard or a large merchant ship-building centre, I think I can claim that I have a good many communications from men who work in the dockyards. For some reason or other they send many of these grievances and complaints on to me, and consequently I need make no excuse for intervening in this discussion. I have listened with a good deal of attention to what the representatives of dockyard centres have said, and I feel very satisfied indeed that when they represent a dockyard centre and commence to talk on questions of work inside the dockyard, they are, after all, not so averse to the principle of the nationalisation of industry as we are sometimes led to believe. When one speaks with an eye on his constituency, it probably changes his point of view just a little bit, and I have noticed to-night that the work done in the Royal Dockyards is said to be as good as any work that could be done in any other establishment, and I notice also that those who have been speaking in that strain are not afraid of bureaucracy, which is supposed to govern nationalised industry.
I disagree, however, with the right hon. Gentleman on this side, who said that the Royal Dockyards should be dispensed with and one or two sold. Those of us who sit on these Benches take a quite contrary view. We think the nation should not dispense with any of its establishments, and that they should not only keep their establishments, but utilise them to the full at every opportunity. That being so, it is somewhat surprising to find, after the statement which has
been made, I believe by the Prime Minister, that there were orders ahead for five years, or there were likely to be orders ahead for five years for mercantile shipping, the Royal Dockyards cannot be supplied with sufficient work to keep their men in active occupation. I am led to understand that mechanics at Devonport with six, eight and ten years' experience are being thrown out of work. There are already 6,000 men unemployed there, and I am informed—I hope incorrectly—that almost immediately there will be over 2,300 men thrown out of work, and the general feeling of dockyard men in these towns is that all this is occurring because the Government is afraid of vested interests. It is also true that it is generally stated, as the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has said, that in each dockyard a slipway is being kept vacant in case of national emergency. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's repudiation of that statement, because if it were true it would cause a great deal of concern.

Mr. LONG: I repudiated the suggestion with regard to vested interests. I do not know anything about what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the slipway. This is the first time I have heard it mentioned, and I do not think it can be true. But I have taken a note of it, and will inquire.

Mr. YOUNG: I am much obliged for the statement, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman's colleague made the repudiation. At any rate, I am very pleased to hear the statement just made. I would like to say that in the dockyards there are grievances among the men because there have been no repairs in some of the shops for nearly six years, and they are in a very bad state of repair. I am told that in the coppersmiths' shop and another shop at Devonport the men have to stand on planks, for after a shower of rain the shops are flooded. If that is true, I hope something will be done as speedily as possible. I want to say one word in relation to the Colwyn Report. I would like to know more explicitly if Clause 3 of that Report is likely to be put into operation to any large extent. We have been told what is intended to be done in relation to the oil tankers, but still it will be satisfactory to know what is really going to be done in connection with the building of mercantile ships. The right hon. Gentleman
(Dr. Macnamara) told us there were demarcation difficulties in the way. I can assure him many of us on this side of the House do not encourage these demarcation differences between trade union and trade union.
8.0 P.M.
We are as keenly anxious as is the right hon. Gentleman, that the men should be able to get over these difficulties for the purpose of enabling the Admiralty to build mercantile ships in the dockyards. I was going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he had been present at the moment, if he had raised this question with the representatives of Labour in the various dockyards, because I have received a copy of a resolution which I understand was sent to the Admiralty, and which reads as under:—
That this Committee welcomes the findings of the Colwyn Report and requests the Admiralty to take immediate steps to give effect to the same. We submit that if Devonport is to be given the opportunity of demonstrating its capabilities, the discharges of men must of necessity cease in order to retain as many as possible skilled or other workers of all-round experience. This Committee feels that it can speak with assurance that one and all are sympathetic, and that organised labour is prepared to accept its full share of responsibility as per Clause 2 of the Report.
This also refers to Devonport. I trust, though I myself am not in a position to say definitely, that "responsibility" means the settling of this so-called demarkation question, so enabling Plymouth not only to get its oil tankers, but colliers, and other places a further supply of work. I wish to refer to one or two other things in relation to the Navy, not raised, so far as I know, so far in this Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty met some considerable time ago, I think September, 1918, representatives from the society to which I belong, the Boilermakers' Society, and other organisations, in relation to the pay of the artificer engineers. At that time we submitted to him a list of what we thought would be reasonable wages for the various grades in which these men found themselves. The Halsey Report does not come up to the standard placed before the right hon. Gentleman. Personally I regret that, because I think that the Navy ought to have the best engineers that the country and the Empire can give it. If we are to have the best engineers they should be
paid equally well with the engineers in the Mercantile Service For this purpose I think that inducements should always be held out to them, because, as has been truly said this afternoon, we have every reason to be proud of our Navy. Being proud therefore of it, we ought to show our appreciation by making the pay of those in the Service at least as good as those employed under ordinary conditions with other people.
Another point is in relation to the mechanician rating. This was established in 1903. I gather now that there has been offered free discharge to about 44 per cent; of these men. These are more or less handy men, and they are being trained at considerable cost to the country. This appears to me to be one of those opportunities in which the Admiralty can practise economy without any hurt to the Navy. The opportunity for real economy, in my opinion, lies in abolishing this class altogether. If you are offering 44 per cent. free discharge, you will find, I think, that the upkeep and training of the others will be a far heavier burden than the country is justified in bearing. Here is another reason: the Navy is more and more adopting oil fuel for boilers and turbine engines. This process will continue. As it continues the number of stokers will become reduced, seeing there will be less need for them. Internal combustion engines are coming strongly to the front. They also, I expect, will be more and more utilised in the Navy. Under these circumstances, the stoker will become nothing more or less than an engine-cleaner. The skilled men required will be those capable of combining engineering knowledge and experience in all these things, and overlooking in every direction. I happen to have in my hand, culled as correctly as possible, certain statistics. These deal with the approximate cost and upkeep of the mechanical training establishment at Chatham. The naval staff comprises a Commander, and various other grades of officers, whilst there is also a civilian staff. The naval staff costs £5,564 per annum and the civilian staff £4,499. The cost of dockyard labour and material, stores supplied, maintenance (including electric light and power) is £3,550 per annum, while other items bring the total approximate amount to £42,600, or an approximate cost per candidate of no less
than £240 per annum. I think that is—I will not say wasted public money—but a large amount of public money which might be saved under the new conditions which are likely to operate in the Navy. Therefore, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to retain the mechanical training establishment at Chatham, to train mechanicians at an approximate cost of £240 per head per annum to perform duties which are already carried out by the engine-room artificer? If the answer be in the affirmative, I should like further to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered that the retention of the mechanical training establishment at Chatham at the approximate cost of £43,000 per annum is justified on the score of economy?
Every member of the Committee, and the people outside, who are interested in the Navy, will rejoice to know of the Advisory Committee set up for the purpose of securing the welfare of the various grades in the Navy. Probably that naval Welfare Committee is doing good work. But I am convinced that its procedure does not conduce to a proper discussion of class claims—I mean the claims of the various grades. If radical alteration of the procedure is not adopted it will not be a real vehicle for carrying the views of the lower deck to the Admiralty. There is thus a danger of some classes giving the Advisory Welfare Committee the cold shoulder—for how can you expect chief engineers and engine room artificers to prefer their requests, say, for higher status before 17 other lower deck ratings. I understand the engine room is represented by one in 18. Other people are giving decisions as to their requests. I venture to say, without desiring to create any antipathy between the different grades represented, that it is not possible for a cook, or any similar person, to determine what is right and proper for the engine-room. When you have 17 lower grades determining requests from the engine room, it is likely to cause hardship and discontent, and grievances are bound to arise. Class claims will be made the subject of general discussion, thereby leading to confusion, disagreement and discontent, and the good ship "Welfare," which has been established, may become self-wrecked. I hope not. But still I know there are many engine-room
artificers in the organisation to which I belong who are greatly dissatisfied with the procedure that governs the Welfare Committees.

Mr. LONG: Have they made any suggestions?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not know what they did at the last meeting of the Welfare Committee. I do not know whether they are entitled to raise objections of this kind, but I think the objections have to come through the Welfare Committee, and if you have seventeen lower grades determining the position of this one class you are not likely to get much satisfaction in that class. I want also to raise a point in relation to the boy artificers. I make no apology for introducing the question of boys, because we are interested in the training of engineers. I want to make a request that there shall be 5s. per day paid during the last half-year's training. The period of training has just been increased from four to four-and-a-half years, thereby making eighteen months under one condition instead of twelve months. I want, therefore, to make the request that 5s. per day be paid during the last half-year's training and that the boys be promoted to fourth-class E.R.A., provided that the necessary efficiency be obtained.
There is another point in connection with boy artificers. I cannot understand how it comes about that boy seamen, or seamen boys, are regarded as men at the age of 18, while boys who happen to be artificers training for engineers are not regarded as men until they are 20. One knows the susceptibilities of young men in relation to these matters, and I do think that this difference should be removed and that the boy artificer should, like the seaman boy, be recognised as a man at the age of 18. I suggest also it would be far better to go back to the old title for them and let them be styled student engineers. If these two points can be conceded I feel certain it will give very great satisfaction to these classes. I had proposed also to discuss a point in connection with the messing arrangements, but as the Secretary to the Admiralty has already indicated that steps are being taken to carry out our wishes in that direction, there is no need for me to press the matter further. I am sure that all of us, no matter in what part of the House we sit, are particularly anxious that the
British Navy shall be kept up to an effective standard. While we are not desirous to pile up armaments upon armaments, we still feel that the Navy must be in a position to maintain the supremacy of this country at any time. We are anxious, therefore, not to minimise the effectiveness of the Navy. We believe it is of more importance to us than the Army, and therefore we want to see our dockyards most efficient, we want them kept fully employed in times of peace, so that when the emergency comes—we hope it may not—there will be men and facilities for keeping us safe from any foreign foe.

Mr. C. BARRIE: I wish to say a word or two with regard to the disposal of the drifter vessels. A very large number of drifters were lost during the War. The First Lord has paid a well-deserved tribute to the mine sweepers and the men who man them. There were about 200 lost during the War. One hundred and eighty are in the Estimates as being in course of construction or having been completed. Of these, 162 are, I believe, complete, and it has been arranged that 150 shall be sold to drifter seamen. But, for some unaccountable reason, the scheme has been held up, and I rose to draw the First Lord's attention to the fact, so that, if possible, the plan may be proceeded with at once, and for this reason. This is March. May will soon be on us, and May is the month in which drifters are being got ready to proceed to sea. If the scheme is held up very much longer, the result will be that these 150 vessels set aside for this purpose will be lost, so far as the summer fishing is concerned. Moreover, it is costing a very large sum of money to keep these vessels lying idle, as at the present moment, and in the interests of economy alone I think it is desirable that they should be got to work. I have one further point to raise, and that is in connection with the question of repairs to the drifters which were working at sea during the War. A certain sum has been set aside for repairing these vessels, and, indeed, a very large number have already been repaired. I cannot say that the repairs which have been done to most of the vessels have met with general satisfaction at the hands of the fishermen. It is a very difficult and delicate matter, and I have no doubt that the Admiralty officials have done
their best under the difficult circumstances. But these vessels, as the House knows, are more or less privately owned, their owners take very great pride in them, and, naturally, they wish to have them repaired as well as possible. Probably the officials have had so much to do that they have been inclined, perhaps, to let the work be done, I will not say negligently, but, at any rate, to let it be skimped, and the result is that the repairs have not been carried out as they should have been. Several fishermen have appealed to me to have this question looked into, and I would ask the First Lord to investigate this matter, and if any cases are brought to the notice of the Admiralty where the repairs ought to be reviewed, surely it is only reasonable that that should be done out of consideration for the great services these men rendered to the State during the War.

Lieut.-Colonel PINKHAM: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but I have heard so many references to Plymouth that, being a Plymouth man myself, I wish to say I am delighted to witness the enthusiasm displayed for that town, especially by those who only know about it when they are in search of a constituency. I have worked in yards on the Clyde, and I have seen how it is possible there for war vessels to be built in the same yard and at the same time as merchant vessels. If that be possible on the Clyde or the Tyne surely it is equally possible for west countrymen, and in view of that I do not attach importance to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman on the point of the discharges. I really rose to see if something cannot be done for those men in the Navy who have lost their sight by explosions in peace time. I had one case brought to my notice where a man lost his sight in an explosion on a warship at Malta in February, 1914. He was awarded the magnificent pension of 13s. per week, and this was augmented by 4s. 6d. a week from Greenwich. After his first child was born, and that was four years after the explosion, his Greenwich pension ceased. I suppose it was thought that three could live on less than two. Four shillings and sixpence was taken oft, and the man to-day is totally blind and is only allowed 13s. a week. After the Bill, which was unanimously passed the other day, it would be well if the
Admiralty would take that and similar cases into consideration. I went to the Pensions Minister and I failed. I then handed the case over to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Rear-Admiral Sir E. Hall). He tried the same source. Then he went to the Admiralty and failed. Now it is thrown back on the Middlesex War Pensions Committee to see if they can do something for a naval stoker who lost his sight during an explosion in a stokehold in peace time and is now allowed the magnificent sum of 13s. to live on and to keep his wife and child. The last speaker from the Labour Benches could not understand why a seaman's boy was called a man at the age of 18 and one in the engineer's department would not reach that rank until he was 20. A bluejacket, when he arrives at the age of 18, is physically fit for all the work he is called upon to do, but a man who is learning a trade in the engine room or the artificer's shop will not reach that stage of skill until he is 20 or 21, just as in civil workshops. I was surprised to hear an hon. Member associated with a highly-skilled trade union ask such a simple question.

Mr. WIGNALL: I have received a large number of letters and telegrams asking me to put in a word or two for the labourers in our various dockyards. The lot of the skilled mechanic is a hard one in time of unemployment, but the lot of the unskilled man, generally known as a labourer, is very much worse still, and it is because of that that I have been specially requested to draw attention to the position. We have heard a good deal to-day and yesterday of the Colwyn Report, and we have heard a good deal of condemnation because of the want of desire on the part of the Admiralty to put it into operation. The 20th Clause says:
Facilities undoubtedly exist for the efficient and rapid discharging of ships of bulk cargo, and we consider that every endeavour should be made to bring those into immediate use in view of the grave congestion of other ports.
That is a very important clause, which should be emphasised and brought to the notice of the Admiralty. Clause 17 says:
We have, lastly, considered the possibilities, of the dockyards as the basis of lines of steamers. The only dockyard which presents reasonable attractions is Devonport, which might be made a terminal port. At this port much handling of commercial cargo took place during the War, and we consider
that work of this kind might well be continued.
I have not heard in any of the Statements—and most admirable Statements they have been—of the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, any intention on the part of the Admiralty to attempt to put these recommendations into operation. A Committee can be appointed and give honest and sincere service, but the fate of a large number of their Reports is to be put aside unless they happen to fit in with the desire of the Department concerned, and then they are put into practice. Devonport is is an admirable place, with great shipping facilities, and there is a great congestion in other centres. We have heard of ships being laid up and kept for two and three weeks full of cargo, which could not be handled, and yet in a place like Devon-port, where they could handle ships with great despatch in war time, and where every facility exists for handling bulk cargo, with a knowledge of the valuable food that is actually going to waste, and various other commodities which are lying there, no attempt is made to utilise the port to the best possible advantage. I am not foolish enough to suggest that great dockyard centres should be maintained at the same status in peace time as in war time. I am not foolish enough to think that the needs of the nation demand that the great crowd of workmen who have been gathered together in the emergency of war to provide facilities for carrying the War on, shall be maintained in peace time. I am not foolish enough to agitate that we should go on building warships which are not wanted. But I am anxious that we should avail ourselves as far as possible of the opportunity of entering upon other work providing employment for those people who have been gathered together at the need of the nation, and not allowed to starve, as many are doing to-day, in our dockyard centres. It is a terrible condition of affairs when we realise it. There is one striking phrase in the Colwyn Report, which says that if the Admiralty whole-heartedly take up this question, very many means can be found, and very many opportunities will develop for engaging in work which will be of national importance, without cost to the nation, and at the same time providing employment for thousands of people. I hope that due note will be
taken of Clause 20 in the Report, and that we may be told whether any attempt has been made, or any desire shown, to meet the recommendations of the Report, with a view to diverting cargoes from congested ports to Devonport, where work is needed so badly.
I wish to draw attention to the system of paying compensation to employees in the dockyards. I have raised the matter by question on several occasions, and I have also raised it by correspondence and personal interviews, and every case which has been mentioned has been dealt with speedily and put right I allude to the matter to-night, because I want the system altered. The Admiralty have contracted out of the Insurance Scheme and have a scheme of their own. I do not find fault with the scheme; I am only complaining of the way in which it is administered. Under the scheme, a man who is injured is examined and gets his doctor's certificate and then is granted what is termed "hurt pay." We call it compensation pay. Hurt pay is granted according to a scale which has been adopted, and it goes on for six months, but at the end of the six months it automatically ceases. The man has to be medically examined, and a report has to be sent in, and the Committee that sees to the matter has then to decide whether he is entitled to a continuation of the hurt pay. I have no fault to find with that; but where the evil comes in is that the six months are allowed to expire before the man is reexamined. I do not know why they are so slow about their business. I have had cases which I have submitted to the Department, where a man has been kept waiting for three months. It would not matter so much if his hurt pay was continued, but his hurt pay stops, and he has to wait sometimes very long periods before the Committee decide whether he is entitled to a continuation of the pay. If the Committee decides that he is, then the back pay is given to him. But what about the interva when there is no money coming in? What about the wife and children and the man himself It is bad enough to be receiving no wages when you are out of work, but it is infinitely worse if the man is broken in health and requires attention and consideration, that he should be deprived of his means of livelihood during that period.
I am sorry that the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary are not present so that I can tell them what I feel on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is now on the Government Bench will carry my message to them, although he cannot carry the fire which is inflaming my soul. He can, however, tell them that I shall have something to say by-and-by. If a man is permanently injured, if he loses a limb, say, there is no question, but if there is a doubt the man has to be medically examined, and he has to wait until the Committee have decided. He ought to be given the benefit of the doubt until his case has been decided. The system should be altered in such a way that the examination takes place two weeks, or one week, before the expiration of the six months. If there is any delay in the completion of the examination and the findings of the Committee, the hurt pay should continue until the report is to hand. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is now present, because there is no more sympathetic man in any Department, and I know it is not in accordance with his desire that any man should suffer through the machinery not being rapid enough to meet his case. [Dr. MACNAMARA: "Hear, hear!"] If the machinery needs speeding up, I am sure I have only to mention it to him to get it speeded up. I want the speeding-up process to be carried out so that if anyone has to suffer a hardship it should not be the one who is least able to bear it. I believe in putting the burden on the back that can carry it best. The heaviest burden should not be put upon the weakest shoulders. I am pleading for those who are least able to bear the burden. I feel confident that the Department will put this matter right.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to allude briefly to a matter that I spoke about last night, namely, the necessity for declaring the illegality of the submarine as a weapon of war. I left out one sentence which I ought to have put in. One defence for keeping on the submarine is that it can be built by rapid methods in a few months. I speak of after the outbreak of a war, when submarines have been declared illegal. It is said that the parts could be secretly pre-pared in various parts of a country in the guise of cranes or bridge girders or the like, and hurriedly assembled after the outbreak of war. But it takes much
longer than that to train submarine officers, as the Germans found to their cost. It takes many months to make a good periscope officer, and we should at least have a breathing space of 12 months, if the war lasted so long, for anti-submarine preparations, if the submarine was declared illegal now.
I wish to make a few remarks about the distribution of the fleet as given in the very admirable White Paper which was issued yesterday. In the China Sea there are no torpedo boat destroyers. I am quite sure I shall have the support of the other professional Members here when I say that a fleet must be complete, must have submarines, aircraft, destroyers, and all the rest of it. A fleet without destroyers is as bad as an army without artillery. If the fleet in China is to fight it ought to have all its weapons complete. They used to have destroyers in China, and they did very good service. I served there myself, and the training was very excellent for the officers and men who served in them. I think that it would be a good measure when we are so strong in destroyers to have some stationed, say, at Hong Kong. We are sending sloops to China. They were put together in a great hurry for anti-submarine service, and they were useful in the late War, but only because of our great battle fleet which supported them. That may not be the case in future.
I appreciate what has been said about showing the flag, but we could do that as well with light cruisers. These sloops cannot show the flag with dignity in peace nor with effect in war. They would sink with honour, but they can neither fight nor run away. Exactly the same thing applies to the Red Sea, where we are also using sloops. The argument might be used that they are useful in hot weather, but with double awnings, side-screens and ventilators I do not see why light cruisers could not do the work. They would show the flag with more dignity in those days, for the dwellers in these places are now very sophisticated and they know quite well when a ship is a fighting ship and when it is not. In tie East Indies the flag ship is the quite obsolete "Highflyer." I divided the House last year on the spending of money on that ship. It is a very ancient ship. It belonged to a very useful class and did good work in its time. It is said that
the only reason that it is kept there is that it has comfortable quarters for the Admiral. But any Admiral worth his salt would prefer a fast modern ship. Again, in the East Indies there are no torpedo boat destroyers. I consider that a great pity. There should also be submarines, and there should be at least one seaplane carrier. If you are going to have these small squadrons, let them be at least complete in all the moving arms.
I had put down notice to reduce the Vote by 1,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman who led off this Debate moved to reduce it by 100 men. I am going to try to show how the personnel could easily be reduced by 1,000 men with great saving to the community and no loss in efficiency. There are great numbers of men in the Navy who want to return to civil life. I get many letters, as other hon. Members, I am sure, also do, from constituents serving in the Fleet who want to get out of the Navy if they can. It seems a great pity that these men should be kept on to man such ships as the "Hussar." I was her first lieutenant in the Mediterranean in 1908, and I met the right hon. Gentleman on the lower bar of the Union Club on that occasion when he came out on the Admiralty yacht. She was then the yacht of the Commander-in-Chief, but she is obsolete as a gunboat and is perfectly useless for war purposes. This is not a time when we should be spending money on a yacht for the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean. He can take a passage on a destroyer if he wants to go to any place.
Another case is that of the "Carnarvon," which for modern war purposes is really useless. The same thing applies to the "Cumberland." Then there is the "Commonwealth." I served in her during the War, a dear old tub and an excellent ship, but for modern purposes no use whatever. Her gun power is inadequate, but she is used as a gunnery training-ship, and is fitted up with all the latest apparatus. Therefore, it might be said it is a great economy to keep her on, but this ship absorbs many officers and men. The "Agincourt," with her 14 12in.-guns, a modern ship, is in reserve, and I submit with great diffidence that a better policy would be to scrap the old "Commonwealth," which will never fire another shot in anger, and replace her as a gunnery training ship by the
"Agincourt" or some other modern vessel in reserve.
The "Cæsar" has still officers and men, but is utterly obsolete. One or two of her class were used as breakwaters towards the end of the War. The "Hearty" is being used for survey purposes. A light cruiser could do that work just as well. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we might not be able to spare light cruisers for that work, but you will not be able to man all the light cruisers you have in the Navy list. We have never been so strong in light cruisers as we are at present, and you have to have a certain number of light cruisers in reserve, or kept in dockyards, which might be in active work and kept efficient as ships can be kept efficient only by active work. In commission reserve you have obsolete ships such as the "Antrim," the "Devonshire," the "Donegal," and the "Glory." I cannot understand what the Board of Admiralty are thinking of to tie up officers and men in these ships. Then there are 12 P. boats, which were built at the instance of a late Lord, because he was told that submarines were better on the surface than other types, and they were made as like submarines as possible, and they did good work in patrol service, but they are no use either from the point of view of steaming, seagoing, or any other point of view.
I would also ask for a declaration of policy in the future with regard to the Baltic. I asked a question on Wednesday about the clearance of the mines in the Gulf of Finland. I do not wish to comment on the reply of the First Lord, except to recall that he said that whether we exchange information as to the position of these minefields—I hope we shall do it in the interests of humanity—will depend on the attitude of the Bolshevik Men-of-War towards our Men-of-War. Are we going to send a cruiser squadron to the Baltic permanently? There is no Baltic squadron shown in the White Paper. If we are going to send such a squadron, what is its base going to be? Is it true that we have been bargaining for a base in one of the islands? What is it going to cost us? Are we going to turn the Baltic into another Mediterranean? I do not know that we have any interests in the Baltic at the moment, though it would be easy to manufacture
them. The First Lord told us yesterday that it was difficult for this country to find an enemy. Is it proposed to make one in the Baltic?
Might I also ask for a declaration of policy with regard to the Black Sea? I do not wish to refer to the recent activities of our Fleet there, except to say that when the Prime Minister was telling an interested House that we were going to enter into trade relations with the Soviet Government, our ships were firing over the houses of Odessa on to the advancing Red Army. I reserve further comment on that subject until the despatches are published. I cannot undertsand why the Admiralty refuse to give the figures showing the expenditure on coal and oil. The total amount of money allowed is shown in the Estimates, and I do not see why there could not appear also figures showing the tons of coal and of oil burned. They would not be of any advantage to a possible enemy, though I believe that that is the official apologia. It is important we should know the facts. There is a great shortage of oil and a greater shortage of coal, and it is right that this Committee, as guardians of the public purse and also of the supplies of fuel, should know the amount being spent by the Fleet. I do not say that fuel is being wasted, for I hope we have got back to the pre-War practice of economy. In view of the fact that we are so supreme at sea—one of the few fruits of victory—I think it is most unreasonable to refuse to give this Committee the expenditure on coal and oil.
I understand that other hon. Members will refer to the item of £50,000 for armament firms, the voting of which seems to me a very retrograde step. Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations makes a very pious pronouncement on that subject:
Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those members of the League who are not able to manufacture munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety,
I understand the remaining Vote will be passed pro formâ. With great respect I draw the attention of hon. Members on these Benches to this item of £50,000, subsidy to armament firms. I have quoted
what is the pious hope of the League of Nations, and it is in the Peace Treaty which the Prime Minister said we were determined to keep. In these Estimates and in the item referred to you have the practice. You are asked to vote £50,000 for the subsidising of armour plate rolling, or something of that sort. Armament firms have not done badly during the War. I should have thought they could have foregone that item, at any rate for a few years.
The distribution of the Fleet and everything connected with it rests on policy. I take it that the function of the Fleet is to fight. There are two possible enemies that we can fight. The matter has been faithfully dealt with by the First Lord, and I agree entirely with his attitude towards the United States. I submit with great respect that our dockyards abroad are not being maintained on any known principle of strategy. I refer to the two dockyards in the Far East, Weihaiwei and Hong Kong. If we are engaged in a war, with Japan as an Ally, we shall not need those dockyards, for there are very much better equipped dockyards and bases in Japan. If Japan is an enemy it is extremely doubtful if we shall be able to make full use of Hongkong and certainly we shall not be able to make use of Weihaiwei, which is within gunshot of Port Arthur. Every bit of money spent on Weihaiwei is sheer waste and might as well be thrown into the sea. I would suggest that the money might be spent on Singapore, which is going to be the most important strategical point in the world. It is a nodal point for sea routes as well as for air routes and is unique. I should like to see a development of Singapore as a naval and air base. With regard to Jamaica the same thing applies in relation to the United States. If we are Allies we shall not require Jamaica; if we are going to be in hostility to the United States, Jamaica cannot be held, however strong we are, because of its greater nearness to Key West than to our main bases. Any naval officer would say so quite plainly. Therefore, sums spent on oil fuel tanks and the upkeep of the yard at Jamaica are really sums wasted. If it is a question of the command of the Atlantic the money should be spent at Galway Bay or at Queens-town.
9.0 P.M.
I wish I had had the opportunity of moving to reduce the Vote by a thousand
men. I think I have shown that in the obsolete and obsolescent vessels you could save that number many times over. May I also refer to the 700 men due for demobilisation, and who are most of them practical fishermen. Some of them, no doubt, may stop on in their desire to serve their country. We may be told that they are engaged in re-conditioning trawlers; but there are plenty of men in those obsolescent vessels who could be doing that work while these 700 men ought to be fishing, and thus earning better wages for themselves and their families, and providing a supply of cheap food for the country. All sorts of excuses have been made as to why these men have not been demobilised, and I think that it is very scandalous that they have not been. I should like to reinforce the remarks made by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) with regard to the number of Admirals flying their flags. Admirals, though useful, are expensive officers with their Staffs, special steamboats, and all the rest of it. There are ten ships in the Atlantic Fleet and no less than five Admirals, or one for every two ships. It may be said that the Junior Admirals are getting experience, and that may be so, but then the Captains are not. In the interests of economy, I have no hesitation in putting this point and pressing for some explanation.
We are keeping an enormous number of trawlers which are used for landing liberty men and bringing on board beef and other stores. That is a new departure grown up during the War; and no doubt it is a luxury which through practice has become a necessity. I remember in the Channel Fleet, with 16 battleships we had two duty steamboats for the two Squadrons; and we were not allowed to use them without very special reason. We had to use sailing boats for the sake of economy. We have at present, apart from mine sweeping, 57 Admiralty owned trawlers working with the Fleet, and 6 chartered trawlers. There are 73 Admiralty drifters and 17 chartered drifters. That is an enormous number, and the expense must be very great. Twenty trawlers are engaged mine sweeping. I hope good progress is being made in mine sweeping. The route from England to the Continent across the North Sea is still dangerous with a longer line of passage—and I hope every effort
is being made, in conjunction with Germany, to clear the mines away. With regard to the training of officers, I am in favour of the public school system of entry, as against the present system. I have been, as an officer in a battleship, in charge of midshipmen, and I have had both types under me. After 6 months, you could tell little difference between the young gentlemen from Osborne and Dartmouth, and those who came from the public schools—by the method of public school entry, open to those who could pass the examination. In a great many cases, the public school boy was the superior, and especially in initiative—which I think is not developed at Osborne or Dartmouth. Those who come by the public school entry system, have a greater knowledge of the world than those under the other system.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that feeling in the Fleet is very strong on the subject. There is a school which favours the Osborne and Dartmouth system, but there is a much larger school, especially amongst those who have practical experience on the subject, that the public school system is the better one. I would press for a more democratic system of entry in the future. I consider that there should be no money bar as there is at present. Only well-to-do parents can send their boys to Osborne and Dartmouth. I know that the fees do not cover the instruction and that the Government give a good deal of help, but still poor people are precluded from sending their boys there. This is not only a working-class question in the narrow sense, but is one which affects many people such as officers of the Army or Navy and widowed mothers who will not be able to send their sons. I think it will be much more democratic and cheaper in the long run to have a wider selection, and it will be fairer to the people generally. In the United States Navy there are no fees charged, and any lad who can get nominated and pass the examination can go to their training college. I much regret to see that difficulties are put in the way of promising boys from the lower deck sitting for the special entry examination. They can sit, but it is pointed out that they will be under a great disadvantage in not being able to take the examinations in Latin and French. Why on earth should they?
If these boys from the lower deck, who go as boys from one of the training ships—where they have had a good education and a good training—sit for these examinations, what difference does a knowledge of Latin make? I obtained only 10 per cent. of the available marks in Latin when I passed into the Navy. They only took one in five; the competition was pretty stiff. Three hundred and fifty went up and they took only 60, and I got in on mathematics. What on earth they want Latin for I do not know. As for French, they can pick that up afterwards. I do not see why these boys from the lower deck should not be trained by the naval instructors and given a chance to sit for the special entry examination. Possibly only the best of them would get in in that way, but it would be a goal for the best of the boys in the training ships. They would be able to become midshipmen in three or four years at the age of 17½, and if they can pass the examination I think it is a great pity they should not be given the opportunity. I know that at present they can do so, but, reading the White Paper very carefully, I am afraid that difficulties are being put in the way which are quite unnecessary.
I cannot close my remarks without saying a word or two about the staff organisation at the Admiralty. I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the concessions which have been made in this direction. I think we are coming gradually to staff principles as laid down by Moltke, Schellendorf and Foch, which were in existence long before the War, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well. In the Paper we have been given, if I read it aright, the Deputy-Chief of the Naval Staff looks after the policy and operations, and the Assistant-Chief of the Naval Staff is, as far as I can gather, entierly responsible for material. That is how I read it, though it is not very clear. The whole object of modern staff work, as recognised by all the great French, Gorman and British authorities on that matter—it is really a truism—is that you must separate the thinking out of policy ahead from the day-to-day work. I do not think we are doing that. The very fact that "operations," which mean the ordinary concurrent work of the fleet, and "policy," which is the whole range of naval policy for five, ten or fifteen years ahead, are under the Deputy-Chief of the
Naval Staff, seems to me to stultify that principle. I submit, with great respect, that the arrangement should be as follows: That under the Deputy-Chief of the Naval Staff should be operations, the upkeep of material and the day-to-day use of material and that under the Assistant-Chief of the Naval Staff should be policy and the design of all material, which is, of course closely locked and linked with policy. I may have misread the Memorandum, or perhaps it is intended to make this change shortly, but with great respect I commend this to my right hon. Friend as constructive criticism.
I would also ask him, when he replies, to explain what is the exact relation between the Naval Staff, the War Office, and the Air Service. I have looked carefully in the Navy List and I have read the Paper explanatory of the Estimates with great attention, and I do not see much mention of officers borne for that purpose. I served for nine months in the Plans Division of the Admiralty during a hot period of the War, and the liaison then between the Admiralty and the Hotel Cecil—the Hotel Bolo—was extremely weak. I was for a short time myself the liaison officer, and I know how bad it was. The Air Service was made a separate Ministry during the War and the liaison service had not been created and had to be improvised. I would like a reassurance that the liaison is good and will improve in the near future. Might I repeat the criticism I made last year about the Staff College, the brain of the future Navy, being at Greenwich, a most unsuitable place? It ought to be at Camberley, where naval officers could meet and discuss and collaborate with the military and air Staff Officers and thus get that clash of ideas out of which progress and development comes. I hope that as soon as possible Greenwich will be used for other purposes. In any case, it is too near London. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a pretty strong body of opinion in the Navy that thinks with me on this mater.
Further, I want to make an appeal regarding the Marines imprisoned for misconduct in the North of Russia. I raised this matter last year, and a very full reply was given by the First Lord himself. I am sure everyone who knows anything about the Navy was shocked and astonished to hear that 70 Marines were
accused of cowardice or misconduct in action, an unprecedented event, I should think, in the history of that glorious and incomparable corps. I do not wish to touch on the reasons why they were there, but I would ask the Committee to consider that the Russian situation has changed. I would remind the Committee of this fact: These Royal Marines were ordered to be disembarked and were given leave, if my facts are correct, in order to go to the Army of Occupation on the Rhine—this was last year, after the Armistice—and on their return from leave, at the last minute, without any warning they were sent to North Russia, not as volunteers. I do not wish in any way to criticise what has been said about them. They are accused of misconduct and cowardice in action in North Russia. I suppose in no campaign in which British forces have been engaged has there been so many courts-martial per cent. of the persons engaged as in those North Russian operations, and, I might also add, so high a number of decorations per cent. given as were given in that operation, and for very little fighting. The whole thing is over. An hon. Member says it is not, but it is over as far as these men are concerned—we have no men in Russia—though there will be a reckoning later on, no doubt, at least I hope so. I would appeal, however, for an amnesty for these men. We are not going to make peace with the Bolsheviks, but we are going to trade with them. We are going to take their bloodstained corn. Earlier in my few remarks I found it necessary to question the fact that the Fleet was engaged in firing at the Bolshevik Army at Odessa, while the Prime Minister was making a speech advocating peace and trade, but in view of the fact that the situation has changed, I think it is time that those men were released. They have been well punished. They have been sentenced and disgraced and sent for long terms of imprisonment. I know the imprisonment has been reduced, but they are still languishing in prison. In view of the feeling in the country among the working-classes about this Russian expedi-Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has testified to in this House, and in view of the great service done during the War by the Royal Marines, I really think that these men might be released, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will
make that representation in the proper quarter.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I want to say a few words about some of the air aspects of the Estimates which were presented by the First Lord to the House last night. I will mention one or two small items before I attempt a general survey, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give us any information on them. Those of us who are interested in the Air Service are anxious to see that because it is a junior service it does not suffer in competition with the senior services. There is work which can be done with advantage by the Air Service which ought not by reason of some tradition to be retained by the others. The Secretary of State for War, speaking on his Estimates, said:
The Meteorological Office and the whole service of meteorology has been taken over by the Air Service, and the Air Minister is responsible.
It is obvious that the Air Ministry is the most suitable one for dealing with meteorological work, because it is the only service which has machines which go into the air. On page 56 of these Estimates there is £1,875 for meteorological work, and I would like to know whether that is merely a passing item or whether there is to be co-ordination with the Air Ministry and whether such items would be transferred to it. Also on page 58, there is a reference to the Compass Department. The Air Minister pays £5,000 a year to the Admiralty in connection with this Department. No doubt the Admiralty is the best equipped in this kind of work, and I should say that in some matters like this if the Air Service were to be taken over by another Department, the Admiralty would be the best Department to take it over.
Then there is the question of surveys. Is any of that work being done by aeroplane? In the Red Sea during the War, the work of charting the reefs in the clear water was done by aerial photography, and I think it was a cheaper and a better substitute for the ordinary method. It would interest many people to know whether that work is being continued, and if other charting is being done by aeroplane. Next I come to the Coastguard, for which there is £560,000 for wages, and so on, and again £83,000 for the Coastguard staff. I only wish to throw out a
suggestion that the whole of the work of the Coastguard might be done by the Air Service. It would be wise to look into the future and see whether some of the officers who have been trained in flight, either on planes or boats, could not be employed in conducting the coast patrol. During the War the coasts were patrolled from the Air Stations, and I think that that duty might be taken over by the Air Service altogether. A patrol of 50 miles out is a comparatively trivial thing in an aeroplane. Two men in an aeroplane would do far more than a man who was guarding the coast from the top of a cliff or along the beach. The machine in the air has a greater sweep of the surface, both of land and water, than the ordinary coastguard could have. All these duties, I think, could be performed by the Air Force; but, at any rate, I throw out the suggestion, whether some of the watching of the coast could not be much better done by the Air Service. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the expense? "] I am not going into that. A distance of fifty miles could be patrolled by one machine with ten men, and then these men would all the time be practising flying at sea instead of practising from the aerodrome or from their flying stations. I think the Admiralty should not lose sight of that possible development.
Next I come to a much more important subject. References have been made to a proposed Defence Minister. We have had statements both from the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it would be interesting to hear how their conflicting policies can be made to agree. The Secretary of State for War indicated on 11th March that he was in favour of grouping the Departments. That was by way of defence for taking over two Departments himself. Then we had the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day, who said that the Navy would not consent to any proposal that one Member of the Cabinet should represent the Army and Navy in this House. I have not had experience enough to express an opinion, but there is a conflict between these two statements which should, if possible, be reconciled. Whatever co-ordination there may be between the three Services, it should be a true federation and on a basis of equality. It would not be fair to treat the Army and Navy as units, and then to
bring in the Air Service in an inferior position. It should not be a question of size or cost or numbers, nor even of the history of the Service. You cannot have true federalism without free consent and equality of power. It may be that considerable economies could be effected by a re-arrangement of the duties falling upon the three Services. The Air Force might be able to take over part of the duties of the others. But I think most people will desire to see the Air Service, whether independent or unified, in such a, position that it can develop itself to the greatest possible advantage. Whatever may be said by the Admiralty, there is no doubt that the Air Service cannot be developed except by people whose whole thought and interest and career are wrapped up in the Air Service. It cannot be developed as a side issue or as a secondary occupation of people who, in their hearts, are either soldiers or sailors; you must have people whose whole allegiance is to the Air. The Admiralty, in the Memorandum they have issued, have laid down two principles. The first is that everything that flies from a ship must necessarily be under the command of the Admiralty; and the second is that anything that attacks at sea must be under the command of the Admiralty. I understand, of course, the reasons that the Admiralty have for laying down those principles. They ask, how is it possible to have an Admiral in command say, of the North Sea, with a separate Fleet, under the command of an Air Marshal, occupying the waters which are properly within the strategical area of the Admiral? I quite realise that, for the observation of artillery fire, the machine that observes the fire of the gun must be under the control of the gunner, whether he is on land or on the sea. It is equally obvious that a machine that makes a reconnaissance at sea, for the purpose of finding out the enemy, must be under the control of the Admiral for whose benefit the reconnaissance is being carried out.
That is not the whole story. We look to a development of the Air Service in the future. There is the case of oversea raids—raids which may start either from the coast or, possibly, from inland, and may go oversea for long distances and carry out offensive raids. Then there is the case of offensive operations undertaken from seaplane carriers in distant theatres of war. Let us take the parallel
of aerodromes on land. The Admiralty say that everything that floats must be under their command. The General in the Field might very well say that any area of territory must be under the command of the General. If we examine what occurred in the War, we find that the aerodromes near the front line, which did the service for the corps or division of the Army, as the case might be, being in the war zone, were directly under the command of the General. But there were those aerodromes which were a long way behind the front line, from which the Independent Air Force carried out its operations, and they certainly were never suggested as being within the zone of war, or within the proper scope of the Commander-in-Chief. Working from that, I venture to suggest that there are occasions on which it might be very proper for the Air Ministry to have command, or I would say—so as not to make a proposition which cannot be maintained—to have the most free use and capability of development of flying things, independently of the Admiralty. I do not expect that that proposition will be accepted by those who take the Admiralty view, but I will give a few reasons for it. First of all, it is to be remembered that a seaplane carrier is a special type of ship. I put aside the question of the ships on which aeroplanes land when they come down, and am speaking simply of the seaplane carrier, that is to say, the ship which takes the seaplane out of the hangar, swings it out, drops it on to the water, and sends it on its mission. For that you want a ship of a special type of design and a special class of manœuvre. It is really a ship which is not designed, used or manœuvred as a ship, but a vessel the solo existence of which is directed towards besing serviceable as a floating aerodrome.
The aerodrome is not like a camp in every respect. It must be selected by air officers, because they alone can judge of those considerations of wind, trees, character of ground, or nature of atmosphere, which make a good or bad aerodrome. So far as it is possible, it is desirable to permit the air officer to have the widest possible scope in the design and management of the seaplane carrier. Primâ facie, I mention that as what can be said for the case I am advancing. There are some operations carried out in the air from ships which have nothing to
do with the Admiralty or the Fleet. The best examples one can possibly take of that are examples from the War itself. There are operations which are purely air operations, which are carried out from ships, but which are not done in the service of the Admiralty at all, but are done in the service of the Army. The raids carried out on Pola by the Italians are one example. Pola used to be bombed by the large Caproni machines that flew from Padua. They flew across the head of the Adriatic, and so came over Pola and launched their bombs. According to the Admiralty memorandum, those machines would come under the control of the Admiralty, because that is an oversea operation in connection with the Fleet. There was of course, naturally, to be an escort of destroyers, in case one of the machines might come down and salvage might be necessary. The whole operation, however, broke down, and was not performed, because it was impossible to get a co-ordination between the Army and the Air Service. That is an example from an Allied Power. My contention is that an operation of that kind, although carried out overseas in conjunction with the Navy, is an operation which should properly be put under the supreme command of the air service concerned. We ourselves had squadrons of D.H/'s at Otranto flying over and bombing the Austrian ships at Durazzo. They were not even seaplanes. They simply flew from the heel of Italy, across the narrow Adriatic, to bomb the Fleet in Durazzo. I venture to suggest that, even the naval co-operation might have been necessary for that, it should have been recognised as an operation in which the Air Service should have the supreme command. I can give other examples of work done by the Air Service from seaplane carriers, which was not in the least in the service of the Admiralty. We had a station at Port Said. The Army was concerned in fighting the advancing Turk coming down the coast road from Palestine and into Egypt. Our work consisted entirely in sending a seaplane carrier along the Palestine coast, flying over the low-lying land of Palestine and Syria, and taking photographs and bringing them back. We were nominally under the control of the Admiralty, but in reality the whole of the work was carried out for the G.H.Q. of the Army. I assure
the right hon. Gentleman that that arrangement, which was then in existence, caused the very greatest inconvenience to all the parties concerned. We did not even have a British escort, but were escorted either by French torpedo boats or armed trawlers. The work was done for the Army, and yet, owing to the rules then persisting, and re-enacted in this memorandum, we had to depend on the Commander-in-Chief of the East Indies.
It was so throughout the whole War, in the attacks on the Arabian coast, for example. When Jeddah fell to the King of the Hedjaz, it was really an air operation, and I suggest that there are many other illustrations of the same kind. The war in the Hinterland of Aden was the same. It was impossible to reach Mahomed Said, who lived in the Hinterland of Aden, except by air, not because it was very far away, but because it was too hot, and the troops could not advance across the intervening desert. We could only reach him by sending a seaplane carrier off the coast, launching our machines, and attacking with bombs. Why should the air officer be precluded for ever, as he is in the terms of this Memorandum, from having the superior command of an operation of that kind? Then there is the question of submarine detection. Everybody knows that the seaplane is a far better instrument for detecting a submarine than anything on the water, the reason being that if a periscope or anything is showing, as it it dragged through the water it leaves a trail of white, which can be seen from a height of 500 or 1,000 ft. for a very great distance. It is possible that instead of air convoys, you might, in the unhappy event of any future conflict, have a swept route, or patrolled band, going from here to Egypt, entirely done by aircraft, based on places like Calais, Malta, Suvla Bay, and so on—a broad band of the sea never out of sight of an airman. If that were so, it would be very difficult for a submarine to live in that patrolled passage. Plans for that purpose were put forward during the War, but why should you not yield the superior command, in a case like that, to the officer who really carries the responsibility and is responsible for the success of the work?
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that although sometimes the Admiralty was sympathetic to the Air Service, there were times when it showed
a real lack of sympathy and comprehension. Naval officers have been, perhaps naturally, unsympathetic professionally to the Air Service. There was the case of the captain who, when it was suggested that he should have his guns marked for by flying machines, said, "Thank you, but my signaller will see all he wants to see from the foretop of the vessel." There was the case during the War of the bombardment of the Belgian coast, when some gallant officer was tied on to a tripod to watch the shooting from his battleship. I think that actually occurred. What fatuity, when artillery observation by aircraft was possible! We have, of course, passed those days, but it is fair to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Air Service has only succeeded owing to the energy and enthusiasm of those who believe in it. Let me remind him that at the battle of Jutland there was only one seaplane in the air, and at the same time in France there were 450 machines actually flying. If the Admiralty had been as sympathetic as it should have been to the Air Service, how came it that at the same time in the War there was one machine in the air at the Jutland battle and 450 machines flying—I am not speaking about the establishment—on the French front? I would beg, in relation to this Memorandum, to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what the Minister for War said on this question. We are discussing whether it is ever possible that in a flying operation conducted from the sea the senior command should be in the hands of the air officer. It has been conceded as regards the Army. On the Army Estimates, Vote on Account, the Secretary of State for War spoke first about the Somaliland campaign and its success, and then he said:
The military or ground forces and the sea forces co-operated under the general direction of the aerial command. I propose to apply that principle to another field. I have directed the Chief of the Air Staff to submit an alternative scheme for the control of Mesopotamia."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 23rd February, 1920; Col. 1354, Vol. 125.]
That is to say, that in a field where the air is really the dominant factor, the supreme command passes to the air officer. I very respectfully press this point on the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. We think that it is only by encouragement of this kind, it is only by allowing the air to develop itself in
its own way by those who believe in it, that you can get the best effects. As far as the Navy is concerned, of course it is a Very fine and powerful machine, and perhaps the qualities that most suit a naval officer to fit him for success are administrative qualities—I am putting aside personal courage, which is common to all the Services—routine of business and ability to act in uniformity with all the other officers in the Service. They are not the same qualities that are needed in the Air Service, which is in its infancy. The demand on the Air Service officer is to be in a perpetual ferment of constructive imagination. He should always be thinking out new developments, and I think in the past people of that stamp have met with many chilly and painful rebuffs from the Admiralty. I know distinguished officers whose careers have been very much warped by the lack of sympathy among the naval officers for these men's zeal for the Air Service, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, to bear in mind the points I have made so bold as to advance, and not absolutely, as regards the sea, to do what has not been done as regards the land, namely, shut the door on the possibility of a superior aerial command.

Viscount CURZON: I want particularly to refer to some of the speeches that have preceded me. I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), who, urging very rightly the importance of the Air Service upon the Admiralty, raised the question of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I should like to say, from my own personal experience, what I think is the view of the majority of naval officers to-day, and that is that they do not look forward to, in fact they dread, any suggestion with regard to the constitution of a Minister of Defence. What they really want is the Committee of Imperial Defence resuscitated, revived, and brought into being again, together with a properly constituted staff working in close connection with the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and competent to advise us in all questions of naval, military, and aerial strategy. That is, I know, the opinion of the majority of naval officers, and as far as the Minister of Defence is concerned, the Navy certainly dreads it very much indeed. I raised last night the
question of Lord Jellicoe's tour, and I asked the First Lord whether it would be possible for him to give us any more information. In the course of his remarks, he said that if hon. Members saw those reports he did not think they would criticise them.
That is exactly what we want to do, and I do hope the right hen. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) will press upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the desire of hon. Members to see those reports. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) made one remark which somewhat astonished me, namely, that it was as easy to drop a torpedo from the air as from a ship. I have seen experiments carried out in connection with the dropping of torpedoes from aircraft, and I believe it to be a fact that you cannot drop a torpedo from above the height of 25 feet or below 15 feet, and the aeroplane has to be at the right angle to get any chance of success. Added to that you have the very common failure in connection with the gyroscope. Therefore I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite correct when he made his statement. In September last, I think it was, there was carried out in the Moray Firth some very important gunnery practice, I think I am at liberty to state, I witnessed this practice. It was carried out entirely by air observation. All the spotting was done by an aeroplane flying about 6000 feet some miles away, and it was supposed to be one of the finest shoots ever carried out by the Navy at long range. Visibility was so bad that the target was practically indiscernible by the ships firing at it. Nevertheless the shoot was one of the best carried out by the Navy in recent years.
There is another point in the First Lord's speech to which I should like to refer. He made one remark yesterday which was very significant, in my opinion, about the German ships. There is considerable anxiety amongst many naval officers to ascertain what is going to be done, and whether any decisions have been arrived at with regard to the allocation of the German ships. I have put repeated questions to the Prime Minister and the First Lord on this subject. The last question I think was about a week or ten days ago, and the answer I got was that I should not know
till the Turkish Treaty was published. I do not know what the Turkish Treaty has to do with the German ships, but I took the answer for what it was worth. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that a portion lies beneath the waters of Scapa Flow and a portion has been distributed by the Allies to the different forces of those Allies. I should like to know why the House cannot be told what ships have been given, and to what Powers. We have heard a good deal during the Debate about the question of the supply of ships to the Navy, and in particular capital ships. A lot of people seem to question the advisability of constructing a ship like the "Hood," but I think it should be realised that the opinion, at any rate, of the Navy, so far as I know it, is that the capital ships must combine three things—maximum of protection, maximum of armaments, and maximum speed, and that entails large size. To have large size you must pay for it, and it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) said, that we should all like a Rolls-Royce, hut a good many have to put up with a Ford or nothing at all. But in naval warfare it is the capital ship that counts, and to deprive a ship of any of those qualities would be to ensure definite loss of offensive or defensive qualities. There were skilled officers before the War who held that our ships had too much armaments, but when our ships went into the Battle of Jutland it was soon found that, so far from carrying too much armament, they did not carry enough, and a great deal more armament had to be put on the ships after that action.
I wish the First Lord had given a little more information to the House on the subject of mines. I know he could tell the House of one instance during the War where a large portion of a squadron went through a mine-field off Peterhead, with no damage to the ships. That was, of course, due to the protection afforded by the paravanes. The right hon. Member for South Molton seemed to dispute the fact that we were not prepared, so far as the Use of mines was concerned, at the outbreak of war. I believe I am correct in saying that at the outbreak of war the Navy only had about 50 mines available for use, and those were a very inferior type which were renowned for the fact that they very seldom went off. With
regard to the loss of the "Audacious," I know something about that, as most of the crew were shipmates of mine during the War, and I know the "Audacious" was not really lost, or rather need never have been lost, if she had had the special fittings and the special construction which were afterwards fitted to ships actually built before her or at a later period during the War. With regard to the disposition of ships, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) made a remark about the lack of destroyers on the China station. I should like to reinforce what he said. It is surely rather absurd to station a squadron of light cruisers and submarines, and nothing else, at a station like that so far removed from home waters. It would be impossible to reinforce it quickly from Australia. They would have to come some way, and possibly through heavy weather. I therefore hope my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks will not be lost sight of.
With regard to the training of officers, I should like to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said as to special entry. He is perfectly correct as to the great value of the special entry midshipmen. I served in a ship during the War that had to a certain extent specially selected young officers under special entry and from Osborne, and the contrast between the two was very instructive. It was no doubt true the Osborne cadets when first joining the ship probably knew more about the Navy and had more naval knowledge. But, on the other hand, they were smaller, and they did not appear to be quite so healthy or so strong. The special entry boys, on the other hand, were stronger, their minds and characters to a certain extent more formed, and they were very much better at games and all that sort of thing, and, being in better health, they very soon made up any leaway in the matter of knowledge, and the contrast between the two was very marked. I have followed up the careers of them ever since, and they have in practically all cases proved very successful officers. With regard to the question of Cambridge, I do not know whether the country realises the very great value of this Cambridge course to the Navy.
10.0 P.M.
It is held by naval officers that this is one of the finest things the Admiralty
has ever done for the naval officer. It is a thing which the boys themselves appreciate. I know one case, a great friend of mine, a boy shipmate with me for some time, who went to Cambridge. Before he went he was very fond—or perhaps I should say, not fond but thought more of dancing or of its modern equivalent, jazzing, than he ought to do. He was not really very keen about his profession. He went to Cambridge. I have seen him since, and he has told me that his course there had broadened his outlook on life and enabled him to take an enormous interest in various things and subjects about which before he knew little and cared less. His sojourn at Cambridge has been of the greatest possible value to him. I hope that course will go on, and be improved. I should like to point out, too, the possibility of its extreme value to the boys promoted from the lower deck. I should like to see that course made use of by them so that a boy may go from the lower deck, and become a magnificent man and not lower the standard whatever. If he does so he also will be enabled to take advantage of this Cambridge course.
There is the question of the coastguard. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last suggested that it might be possible to replace the coastguard by airmen. As a matter of fact, I was going to raise that subject to-night. I happen to belong to the Lifeboat Institution, and I have lately seen several cases where the coastguard appears to have been, I will not say lax, but unable to keep a sufficiently good lookout. That was due to the fact, I think, that the coastguard is really rather seriously under-manned. There was the case of a vessel lost not very long ago at Buckie, in Scotland. There is no doubt, whatever, that that was entirely due to the coastguard not being sufficiently manned to enable them to keep a night watch. Had they done so they would have been able to do something, and many lives in consequence would have been saved. I was very glad indeed to hear of the concessions which the Parliamentary Secretary announced on the subject of naval pay. These concessions will, indeed, be valued by the Navy. But there is one thing to which I must refer, and that is the question of the naval officers Income Tax. I make no apology for raising this question. It may possibly be wondered why one should champion
the officer and, perhaps, not talk so frequently about the men. It should, however, be realised that the officers have nobody to whom they can refer or come to on the question of their pay, whereas the men are now looked after by that great advance, the Welfare Committee. I think, therefore, it is all-important that this House should really interest itself in the subject of the pay of the naval officer. Admiral Halsey, in his Report, recommended that in the new rates of pay the Income Tax, based at present on the service rate, should be raised to the civilian rate. The Admiralty on that decided that the new rates were to be taxed at the service rate of pay up to 31st March, 1920, and, thereafter, at the civilian rate. The effect of this has been to reduce the net income of naval officers at a very serious time. I would like to point out that the cost of living is rising every day, but what is more serious still is the question of housing. The naval officer is in an almost impossible position in regard to housing. He practically has to keep two homes going, one afloat and one on shore, and his shore home is subject to very frequent shifts, that is, if he is to see his wife at all. He may have to move it to Canada or Australia, and that is a thing which certainly does not obtain to the same extent in any other profession in this country. Furthermore, the naval officer has to take, as a rule, a furnished house or furnished rooms at any port on which he may fix for his residence, and this is one of the cases which do not come under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The householder who has taken the house is protected by that Act against being called upon to pay more rent, whereas, in regard to the rooms which he lets to the naval officer, he is at liberty to raise the rent, and he can practically cover, by that means, the entire cost of the house. This has actually happened in several instances.
I have had a number of letters from naval officers on the subject of income tax, but I do not propose to worry the Committee by reading them. I do wish, however, to make a real appeal to the First Lord who, I know, is very sympathetic indeed on the question of naval officers' pay. I want to ask him on their behalf to carefully go into a number of cases which I have to submit to him on
this subject, and when he has done so, I trust he will consider whether he cannot make a recommendation to the Government that, at any rate, until some appreciable fall takes place in the cost of living, the net income of a naval officer shall not be further reduced. The married man is hit absolutely hard. I know of the case of a lieutenant with six years' seniority who is married and has three children. His wife cannot, of course, afford to engage a servant, but more than that she has to go out into service herself in order to keep things going. It is in view of cases like that I want to be quite sure of securing better treatment for these officers. Before I sit down I should like to say one word with reference to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. A good many references have been made to him in the course of this Debate. I came to this House straight from the ship on which I was serving last year, and almost the last word said to me by my shipmates on the lower deck was, Tell the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what we think of him—tell him off." That was said to me with a wink. It is no secret that in the Navy at that time the right hon. Gentleman was blamed for nearly all grievances from which the men suffered, and I naturally came prepared to find fault with him. But I am bound to say I never received kinder treatment from anybody than I have received from him since I have been in this House, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we all appreciate his services very much indeed. I only wish he had been here while I was speaking.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I was rather surprised that the Members for Devon-port did not refer in greater detail to the question of unemployment in that town. It was only the hon. Member (Viscountess Astor) who had any concrete suggestions to make with regard to the conditions appertaining in Devonport dockyard to-day. I was at Devonport last Sunday, and I found that unemployment had risen to something between five and six thousand—very large indeed for a dockyard town. Anyone who has read the Report of the Colwyn Committee is bound to be amazed at the vagueness of it and the complete absence of any definite proposal dealing with the question of the dockyards. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why efforts have not been made to utilise Plymouth
dockyard for commercial purposes. During the War it was used largely for commercial purposes. The length of the wharfage in the tidal and other basins, also the wharfage outside in the dockyard must be very considerable indeed, and when you take into consideration the terribly congested state of affairs in Liverpool, Hull and in almost every port in Great Britain, I feel sure that if merchant ships could be diverted to Plymouth the congested state of the mercantile marine would be very considerably alleviated. Even if it is not possible to deal with Plymouth and Devonport on broad lines such as those and to alter the demarcation of the trained men in that dockyard, as was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, or to commence the construction of merchant ships in that port, is there any reason why this vast surplus of trained men, engineers, fitters and electricians could not be employed temporarily on other work? The resources of Devon-port yard are very considerable. The demand throughout Europe for electrical and every type of machinery and implements which can be introduced is enormous, for instance, steam ploughs and agricultural machinery in Eastern Europe and Russia. I feel sure if a little initiative were shown it might be possible very speedily to alleviate the misery and poverty which exist among 5,000 or 6,000 men in Devonport to-day, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that definite steps will be taken at once and without any delay whatsoever to find employment for these men. It is no good appointing committees and commissions to inquire into the matter if no action is taken. We have had too many of them and we are getting too much accustomed to the results we receive from them.
Another point on which I would like to dwell is that of meteorology. There are in existence four different Government Departments dealing with this subject. Meteorology is dealt with by the Air Ministry, by the Admiralty, by the War Office to some extent, and there is also a separate meteorological Department at South Kensington. It cannot be efficient and sound to control meteorology from four different Government Departments. If one Government Department is to be responsible for dealing with this important scientific development that Department
should surely be the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry is more closely connected with the air than any other Department. The Air Ministry and aircraft depend more on detailed knowledge of the air than any other Department. I am told that Committees have been sitting to discuss a suggested coordination of the Meteorological service, but the only thing that seems to be done is that of setting up Committees. Since the War the whole system of meteorology has lapsed, and no comprehensive or far-seeing scheme is at present enforced by the Government for distributing meteorological information. I remember before the War, when I was at the Admiralty, it used to be possible by wireless to obtain a meteorological report, synoptic charts, showing the atmospheric conditions throughout the whole of Europe by means of wireless stations within the radius of the Admiralty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication as to the future of Government policy in regard to meteorology.
I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested that trawlers should no longer be employed in the transport of men to and from their ships. I entirely agree with him that the vast number of trawlers, I think it is 160, should be turned back to their fishing trade, but I disagree with him when he suggests that the men in the Fleet should go back to the old system of coming ashore in rowing boats and sailing boats. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member has, like myself, shared the pastime of getting liberty men ashore. These men do not get ashore very often, sometimes once or twice a week, sometimes once or twice a month, and if they are to be sent ashore in bad, rough, rainy weather in open boats or in the ordinary service launch or pinnace, it means that, although their leave lasts perhaps five or six hours, an hour is spent at each end in a very uncomfortable situation in the open boat. The men return on board completely drenched, and any amusement which they obtain from their few hours sojourn ashore is completely nullified by their disagreeable trip to and from the ship. When the right hon. Gentleman considers the suggestion as to what should be done with the trawlers, if he cannot retain some of them for liberty work in open roadsteads such as Rosyth, I hope he will make use
of larger steamers or small passenger steamers, or whatever else may be available. I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we should return as many of the 170 trawlers as possible to the fishing trade, but the chief point he made was that they were employed on liberty work. They are employed on other kinds of work, such as taking mails, and all sorts of jobs on which they were never intended to be employed. I have no doubt that other steamers can be found such as are used on the Thames and other places, for conveying liberty men to and from the shore in open roadsteads.
Those of us who have a connection with the Navy welcome the progress which has been made by the Jerram Committee and its constitutional evolution, the Welfare Committee. Only those who are in direct touch with the men on the lower deck, seamen, however humble their position, can realise the benefit which has accrued to them from the institution of the Welfare Committee. You will understand what it means when I describe it as the Whitley Council of the Navy. Those Councils now provide a safety valve through which every rating can air its grievances, and put forward suggestions for better conditions for alteration in uniform, or any other domestic improvements to which it may think itself entitled. But I am inclined to think that there is still scope for enlarging the operations of the Welfare Committee. These Committees are at present arranged to sit once a year. That might well be increased to once every three months. There is such a voluminous amount to be discussed from every class in the service that it cannot be dealt with adequately by one session every twelve months, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to arrange that these committees should sit once every three months.
There is one regulation in connection with the Welfare Committee which is rather difficult to understand. Instead of the men on the Committee being appointed from all the depots as a whole, and therefore being in a position to represent a class or rating and voice its desires, the Admiralty retain the power to detail the specific port from which such and such a man is nominated. For instance, take a particular branch such as the carpenters. Instead of the carpenters'
representative on the Welfare Committee being appointed from all depots as the best man whom they can find to represent the aspirations of the carpenters of the Navy as a whole, the Admiralty says, this year the carpenters' representative will come from Plymouth, or this year from Devonport, and there is a strong feeling afloat that that restriction has been specially introduced by the Admiralty in order to curtail the appointment of representatives who may desire to voice any aspirations in too strong a manner. For instance, suppose the champion for the carpenters happens this year to be stationed at Portsmouth Dockyard. The Admiralty say that this year the carpenters' representative shall be nominated from Plymouth. Probably it will be found that among the carpenters at Plymouth there is no man who really understands the programme which the carpenter branch wish to put forward. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to make this small Amendment in the present constitution of the Welfare Committee.
I rose primarily to support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) concerning the Air Service. We have had many debates on this matter, and we have raised the same topic continuously since the House first assembled in 1919. I do not think that the policy of the Government improves as time goes by. There is a divergence between the statements of the Secretary of State for War and the policy of the Admiralty. Take the argument of the First Lord. He states that he will, under no circumstances, tolerate the placing of the Admiralty under a Minister of Defence. At the same time we have the Secretary of State for War conducting the Air Ministry under the War Office. If the one is right the other is wrong, and if the one is wrong the other is right.

Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman is making a statement for which he has no foundation whatever. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has constantly stated here that since he became Secretary of State for War and Air he has maintained the two organisations quite distinct, and they could be separated to-morrow if necessary. It is not correct to say that the Air Ministry
is under the War Office. If my right hon. Friend were here he would be the first to contradict that. He holds the two Seals, but holds the two offices distinct. The same man is head of them both, but there is no more link between the War Ministry and the Air Ministry than between the Air Ministry and my Department.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. LONG: It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: We know quite well the influence over those Departments of the Secretary of State for War. He spends three days in the Strand and three days in Whitehall administering those Departments. Whatever may be said by my right hon. Friend, we know it is the fact.

Mr. LONG: Let us understand this. I understand the hon. Gentleman deliberately to state here that the statement I have made on behalf of the Government is false? Let me understand what he said.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: We have a right to interpret the method by which the Government Departments are being administered, There is a very considerable measure of agreement on this side on that matter, as has been so continuously asserted.

Mr. LONG: Will you divide on it?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: We shall, certainly. Let us pass from that little controversial matter. As to the question of a Ministry of Defence, I would rather go further than my hon. and gallant Friend. If it is really the opinion of all the experts to place the three Services under a single Minister, I do not see any very great argument against that, Perhaps the greatest argument against it would be the enormous power which would rest in the hands of one Minister, and a power which, might or might not be used for the good of the country. From the point of view of efficiency and economy, and the co-ordination of offices, certainly to place the three Departments in closer relationship would be all to the good. Just picture the co-ordination which exists between those Departments. The only organisation is the Committee of Imperial Defence or whatever organisation
has now taken its place. At that body possibly the First Lord and the three Parliamentary representatives in this House meet with the Chiefs of Staff and the First Lords and those who correspond to them in the War Office and Air Ministry. You cannot get real coordination by the senior officers simply meeting and discussing a number of principles. If there is to be co-ordination between the three fighting Services, you must arrange that the staffs shall work out the details and thrash out the whole operations and policy together. Therefore I would suggest to the First Lord to consider if he cannot arrange for more co-ordination amongst the operational Departments and that the planning divisions of the three Departments get together. Possibly those Departments may discuss matters together, but I do not think they do so. In the Admiralty there is a planning division which is occupied solely in the preparation of future policy for future operations, and that Department is wholly unaffected by the present executive work and operations. That Department and similar analogous Departments of the War Office and Air Ministry could be assimiliated, possibly, in one Department, and that would provide a means of linking up the three fighting Services. I always feel, in discussing these matters, that we are getting down rather to first principles. On matters such as the Navy Estimates, I would much prefer to see the discussion on broader lines as to whether the Navy Estimates are required or not. For my own part, we, cannot cut down sufficiently our expeinditure. I am not at all sure whether we are not founding a Navy far greater than is really necessary, but if we are to have a fighting force, let us see that it is organised as efficiently as possible and that the administrative machine which works out its policy and plans and operations is run on business-like lines and not allowed to drift and lapse at the whim of this Department or the whim of an officer here and there.
I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the earliest opportunity to set up some Department of the sort I have mentioned. I suggest as a first step a meeting might be called of the representative Departments to plan out and elaborate the details of such an organisation Presuming for a few moments that the statement
of the Minister of War is correct, that the present organisation of the War Office and the Air Ministry is not merely temporary, but is possibly a step towards a Ministry of Defence, I should like to know what steps are being taken as to co-ordination of staff officers at the different colleges. At the present time there are only two air officers at the Military Staff Colloge at Camberley. How many air officers are there at the Naval College at Greenwich or at Porstmouth? I do not believe that there are any. If there is to be coordination between the Services, there must be a certain number of officers of each Service sent to these Colleges to get an insight into the working of the other Service, and an attempt made to make the officers more or less interchangeable from a staff point of view. I agree with every word said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Bonn) concerning the inherent conservatism of the Admiralty on the whole question of the air. I have experienced that very fully, and I feel, if the letter of the First Lord in his explanatory Memorandum really indicates the feeling of the Admiralty towards aircraft, that we should at once remove all aircraft, lock, stock, and barrel, from Admiralty supervision. We want to see the Air Service taking a prominent place among the other Forces of the Empire. There is no personal feeling in the matter, but there is no doubt, when you get people who have been brought up all their lives in the Admiralty or in the Navy, used to one method of transit, used to ships on the surface, used to working in one plane, they are bound to be opposed to new inventions. You have only to read the history of the development of the Navy. You will find that the Admiralty opposed the introduction of the sailing ship, and, when steel and steam ships were introduced, I can imagine that the Admiralty said, "No, let us stick to the old wooden ships; at any rate, when they are blown up, you can use the bits to float on." The same thing is happening with regard to the development of the Air Service to-day. I will not say that they are necessarily stupid, or accuse them of any inherent mental lacking, but, give them all the qualities of education and experience, and, even then, they are bound to be conservative with regard to the development
of the new Force. Take the case of aircraft employes by the Admiralty during the War. There was a scheme for the intensive patrol of submarine routes by aircraft. It had to be forced down the throats of the Admiralty by the Air Ministry and the Secretary of State for War, who was then Minister of Munitions. It had to be forced upon the Admiralty by political means, and it was not accepted by common sense and adaptability. What has happened in respect to torpedo-carrying aircraft? What is the First Lord of the Admiralty doing in the matter? Is he trying to cut down expenses? Or is he looking at the vision which is sarcastically referred to in the Memorandum on the second page? I hope it is not true that this development has been abandoned. May I ask him to refer to that when he has finished his conversation and gets up to reply? I desire to express to the Parliamentary Secretary (Dr. Macnamara) my gratitude for the courteous way in which he has dealt with every question which has been brought to his notice. I only wish I could pay the same tribute to everyone in his Department. I am sorry I can not. I hope before he goes he will give some advice to those who remain which will bring about some better conditions.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I have a great deal to say, but I will confine myself to making a most earnest appeal on behalf of the young married naval officer. I refer to the warrant officers, mates, and all commissioned officers up to the rank of Commander. Their case is lamentable. We have numerous cases where their condition is one of penury. The addition made recently to the pay is insufficient for the married man. It is not liberal even for the unmarried man. Let me make a comparison with the naval officer and his brother officer in the Army. You must assess pay according to responsibility. I will take two cases of equal service and responsibility, the Lieut.-Commander arid the Major. The Lieut.-Commander has £584 a year and the Major has £574 a year. They are practically the same though, if anything, the naval officer's responsibility is greater. The soldier has the advantage. When he gets married he gets £155 a year more to maintain a home, and that is totally different from the cost of the maintenance of a home by the naval officer. Sometimes the naval officer has two
houses on his hands, if he wants to keep anywhere near his family. At the present time he cannot get a house anywhere within his moans. He is moved about from one place to another, and may leave a home hero and another there. Coming home from, say, Australia, at the present day, he can find no house that he can afford to pay for, and the maintenance and education of his children is practically impossible for him. I beseech the First Lord to consider very seriously this proposal, that, for all married officers of 30 years of age and upwards—which places them on a par as regards age with the Army—and with less than £1,000 a year normal pay, there should be a separation allowance at this modest rate, namely, for his wife, 3s. 6d. a day; for his first child, 2s. 6d; for his second child, 1s. 6d.; and for his third, if he is lucky enough to have it, only Is. This very modest proposal only totals up to 8s. 6d. a day when he has achieved three children for the State. The naval officer is usually of good stock—and I am referring also to the lower-deck stock, to the warrant officer and mate—and it is desirable to breed from that stock. At present the married naval officer is in a state of penury. I ask the First Lord to consider that proposal, and give him, at the outside, with three children, 8s. 6d. a day to maintain his family.

Mr. LONG: There are a few preliminary observations that I should like to make before asking the Committee to come to a decision on this Vote. I understand that we are to have a Division, although I confess I do not in the least know what the Division is to be about.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Amendment.

Mr. LONG: If it is the intention to divide in order that the Fleet may be reduced by 100 men, I am quite prepared to accept that, but to-morrow morning we shall have to inform our friends what the Division is about.

Captain W. BENN: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we moved the reduction.

Mr. LONG: It does not matter who moves the reduction, but it does matter what we are dividing about. The moving of the reduction is a mere formality; the really important question is the Division.

Captain BENN: And that it should not be misrepresented.

Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend would really do well not to be so excited. He is much younger than I am, and I can assure him, from my recollection of a life's experience, that you exhaust a great deal of very necessary vital force in getting excited about nothing. He is exciting himself about a proposition that has not been made. I am not misinterpreting his motives, but asking for information. The representative Leader of the Opposition is now in the House, and I will put it to him, and I am quite sure he will not exhaust his vital force as my hon. and gallant Friend has done. I ask very respectfully what we are going to divide about. I am told by one hon. Member opposite that we are going to divide in order that the Navy shall be 100 men less than it is at present. I am quite prepared to accept that as the difference between the two sides. Let the Opposition range themselves for a Navy reduced by 100 men. If that is their view and their wish, I certainly shall not quarrel with it; but I think it would be a subject for the comic newspapers in the course of the next week.
In the meantime I desire to say a word or two before the Division about some of the remarks which have been made in the course of the evening. I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Rear-Admiral Adair) as to the position of some naval officers, but I would put this to him, as a distinguished representative of the Naval Service. Can we make, in respect of the married naval officer with a family, a greater claim for consideration by the State than is being made in respect of everybody to-day with a fixed income below a certain sum? The financial conditions at the moment make the life of the civilian just as hard as that of the sailor. I speak from personal experience. I have taken the trouble to examine into eases in the Civil Service and in the Navy. Do not run away with the notion that you can make the naval case harder by talking about two establishments and so on. There is no harder case to-day than that of the Civil Servant who has got to live in London, who has got to be in London every morning at 9.30 or 10, and who may be kept there by the exigencies of his duty till 10 or 11 at night, or even later. It is absolutely
compulsory upon the man to live within easy reach of London. In these days he is fortunate if he can get, not a house, but a lodging somewhere near London at a rent which he would have got a very good house for a few years ago. I am only stating facts. I have entire sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend's case. For the moment I represent the Admiralty. There is nothing in the world I would like bettor than to be able to persuade the Treasury to do something for the married naval officer, upon whom the times press with cruel severity. I know a case of a naval officer whose wife has to do the whole of the housework, whose children cannot be educated as he would like to educate them, and who is supposed to have his mind free from care in order that he may devote the whole of his energies to his duties, and in present circumstances it is almost impossible, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that you cannot limit the ease to the naval officer. You have got to realise that, as things are, it applies all round, and you cannot raise the one without raising the other. We have raised these cases at the Admiralty. The Treasury are not any more unwilling to consider them than we are, but they are forced to bear in mind the fact that if they once open the door it will not be ajar, but it will be pushed right open, because ail the other cases will come in with it. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend must know that it is not failure on the part of the Admiralty to appreciate the hardness of the cases, it is the complexity and the magnitude of the problem alone which makes it impossible for us at present to deal with it.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I am much obliged for the sympathetic answer.

Mr. LONG: There have been a great many suggestions and criticisms made, of a very friendly character on the whole. Indeed, the Debate has been of so friendly a character that I am very surprised to find that we are going to end with a division. With regard to certain criticisms and suggestions with regard to labour problems, the Admiralty is a very remarkable Department. We have to be prepared to, defend questions of high policy, of naval reconstruction, and of the readjustment of our naval forces, etc. But, in addition to that, we have to be
prepared at the shortest notice to answer the most astounding conundrums, and, in order to make the situation rather more difficult, the hon. Member who spoke last but one put some extraordinary problems about the Meteorological Department. I frankly confess I have never heard of them before. We have a very distinguished hydrographer in the Navy, in whom I have great confidence, and until I heard those remarks I believed that we had the very latest information from the air we could possibly have. It may be we are as much behindhand as he suggests, but records of the War at all events show that the Admiralty were not badly served in this respect during the War, and I am rather inclined to think that hon. Members criticise us for two reasons—one because criticism is the legitimate occupation of the Opposition, and, secondly, because criticism is much easier than defence. I am an old Member of the House of Commons, and we have got to carry on. Debates. That is one of the reasons why we are here. It becomes rather boring when one Member after another gets up and says ditto to the Government, and when they go back to their constituents the latter say, "I see that you did nothing but tell the Government that they were most wonderful people. Why did you not call them names? Do not you know they have not given us this or refused that?" Therefore it is very much easier for Members of Parliament to criticise the Government than to support it. There is another reason. One of the reasons for which the Government was created was in order that it should be the legitimate object of attacks by anybody who did not belong to it. In this respect we do a very useful public service.
Although on the whole I claim that these Estimates have been received with singular and almost unprecedented approval by the House of Commons, yet there has been criticism. With regard to some of the questions as to employés of the Admiralty, I do not pretend to give an answer now, but I have made a careful note, and I will take care that they are carefully examined in the Board of Admiralty, and if we are not able to meet them adequate replies shall be forthcoming within a very short time. With regard to the Air Force, I have always resisted, and always shall resist, the attempt
of any Member, whoever he may be, to discredit the word of a Minister of the Crown speaking on behalf of his Government. It has been the unbroken practice of Parliament to accept the word of a Minister without question. In my experience of over 35 years I have served in Governments, I have never known a case, to whatever party the Government belonged, where the Minister has betrayed the very highest trust which is reposed in him by Parliament, and they take his word as to what is the exact practice in the Government. I stated with absolute truth, and with full knowledge which cannot be possessed by anyone outside the Government, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has administered the Air Service as a separate Department, and he has administered it with absolute fairness. There has been

no partiality as between the War Office on the one hand and the Admiralty on the other. As to my own view, either as First Lord of the Admiralty or as a private individual, I say nothing, but I do say that my right hon. Friend has not done as suggested as Secretary for War or when he had to act as Secretary for Air. I do not say that there is not room for improvement; but I do say it has been worked fairly and honourably by all concerned. We believe we shall find means by which the Air Force will work with the other two great fighting Departments satisfactorily to the State and appreciably to the general interest.

Question put, "That a reduced number, not exceeding 135,900 be employed for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 194.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Lawson, John J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Bromfield, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Spoor, B. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E. C.
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Lieut.-Colonel Malone.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir Janes Tynte
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Howard, Major S. G.


Atkey, A. R.
Donald, Thompson
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Stanley
Doyle, N. Grattan
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edge, Captain William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barnett, Major R. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Jellett, William Morgan


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Johnson, L. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, Walter
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Betterton, Henry B.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Kenyon, Barnet


Bigland, Alfred
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gould, James C.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Lindsay, William Arthur


Britton, G. B.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lloyd, George Butler


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bruton, Sir James
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lonsdale, James Rolston


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Grundy, T. W.
Lorden, John William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lort-Willlams, J.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Lynn, R. J.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hayday, Arthur
Lyon, Laurance


Carr, W. Theodore
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Casey, T. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mallalieu, F. W.


Courthope, Major George L.
Hilder, Lieut.-Coionel Frank
Matthews, David


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hinds, John
Mitchell, William Lane


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hood, Joseph
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. K. (Kirk'dy)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Morison, Thomas Brash


Morris, Richard
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wallace, J.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Neal, Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Oman, Charles William C.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Sexton, James
Waring, Major Walter


Parker, James
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whitla, Sir William


Perring, William George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wignall, James


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Sitch, Charles H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Pollack, Sir Ernest M.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Preston, W. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Prescott, Major W. H.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Younger, Sir George


Reid, D. D.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)



Renwick, George
Taylor, J.
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COAST GUARD, ROYAL MARINES, AND MERCANTILE OFFICERS AND MEN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,459,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £28,727,126 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, the sum of £353,984,850 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

COAL MINES (EMERGENCY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—Distribution of Profits of undertakings.

(1) In view of the emergency resulting from the exigencies of the war, the profits of the undertakings to which this Act applies (hereinafter referred to as undertakings) arising during the period of the operation of this Act shall be aggregated, and after such deduction and addition as are hereinafter mentioned, shall be distributed amongst the several undertakings in manner provided by the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that—

(i) if the amount of the aggregated profits of all the undertakings, after such deduction and addition, exceeds the aggregate of the total standards of all the undertakings, such part only of that amount as is equal to that aggregate, plus one-tenth part of such excess, shall be so distributable;
(ii) if the amount of the aggregated profits of all the undertakings, after such deduction and addition, is less than a sum equal to nine-tenths of the aggregate of the total standards of all the undertakings, the sum distributable shall be increased by an amount equal to such deficiency, if and so far as such deficiency appears to the Controller, or on appeal is proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Referees appointed under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, to have caused by any order, regulation, or direction issued by the Controller or by the Board of Trade after the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty.

(2) In determining the sum distributable, the following deduction and addition shall be made from and to the aggregated profits:—

(a) There shall be deducted from the aggregated profits any sum paid by the Board of Trade or the Controller under the Coal Mines (War Wage Payment) Directions and Supplementary Directions, 1918 and 1919, in respect of the period of the operation of this Act;
(b) There shall be added to the aggregated profits any sums collected by the Board
2553
of Trade or the Controller under the said directions in respect of the said period.

(3) For the purposes of this Act "total standards" in relation to any undertaking means the sum of all the standards attributable to the accounting periods or parts of accounting periods falling within the period of the operation of this Act, and "accounting period" means an accounting period under the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, relating to excess profits duty as amended or explained by any subsequent enactment (which provisions are hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act).

(4) The provisions of this Act shall be taken to be in full satisfaction of all claims for compensation arising in the period of the operation of this Act in respect of the orders of the Board of Trade made under Regulation 9G of the Defence of the Realm Regulations dated the twenty-ninth day of November nineteen hundred and sixteen and the twenty-second day of February nineteen hundred and seventeen, or anything done thereunder.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The first Amendment on the Paper [to leave out the Clause] would destroy the Bill. It is equivalent to a negative of the whole Bill. It would not be in order on the Report stage.

Mr. ADAMSON: Cannot we raise this when the Amendments to the Clause have been disposed of?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no question on the Report stage "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." An Amendment to strike out the operative Clause of the Bill is equivalent to a negative of the whole Bill. That is taken on the third day, but not on the Report stage.

Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I should like to ask the Government whether they think it is a proper thing to take a Bill of this far reaching importance at this time of night. This is a Bill in which at least 1,000,000 workmen are interested, involving large sums of money, and it occurs to my colleagues as to myself, that a Bill of this importance ought to be taken at an early period of the Sitting so that we may have a proper opportunity of debating the whole of these questions rather than taking it at this time of night. I, therefore, appeal to the Government not to go on with the Bill to-night, but to place it as the first Order on a day when we shall have a chance of proper discussion.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): There is no alternative but to carry through this business now. The House realises the state of public business, and the arrangement made in regard to carrying through Supply for the present year. If we are to perform that duty there is no other time available in which we can carry through the Report, stage of this Bill. Accordingly, I must ask the House to consider the alternative of sacrificing this Bill or of proceeding; with it at the present stage. If we do not proceed now a very serious situation arises. Everybody knows that the coal trade is being carried on at the present time in a position of very great difficulty. The arrangements that are to be made in this Bill ought to have been made long ago. The Government presented a Bill to the House which they believed would suit the conditions of the industry, but the Bill was rejected by those who represent the million workers to whom my right hon. Friend has referred. That caused a very great delay. It was equally distasteful, as it seemed, to the coal owners, and accordingly there was nothing to be done except to withdraw the proposals put forward at that time and to introduce others. The present proposals have been before the House for Second Reading, have been carefully considered by a very representative Committee, and now come before the House on Report. There is no time to spare, these arrangements must be made now or they can never be made again. I ask the House to consider the state of confusion to which the coal trade would be reduced if the proposal to adjourn were carried now. The whole time which the House has at its disposal has already been allocated. We are already dangerously near the time, and unless we can solve the coal problem for the current year by the measure which is now before the House we are going to get into an unutterable state of confusion. I accordingly ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his proposal. It could only be resented by the Government. We have no alternative but to carry through the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr ADAMSON: It may be that it is of the utmost importance that the Government should get this Bill, but it certainly is not one of the Bills that was within the arrangement to which the
right hon. Gentleman refers. The arrangement simply covered the question of Supply and did not relate to Bills of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the former Bill was rejected by those of us who represents a million workers. It is rather curious for a member of a Government which has behind it such an enormous majority to say that the small number of members who sit on these benches were responsible for the rejection of the former Bill. Our objection to taking the Bill at this late hour is that it deals with one of the vital industries. It is a Bill involving many millions of money, and we should have more time to consider it than we can have by taking it after 11 o'clock at night.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I regret that my right hon. Friend and his associates should feel that they cannot proceed with this Bill. Nobody knows better than Members of the Labour Party how essential in the interests of trade and the exchequer it is that this Bill should be carried. When this Bill was before the House before it was recognised in all quarters, including those opposite, that this Bill must be proceeded with, and obviously it would be very disadvantageous if it had to be put off until after the recess. We knew that there was objection to its being taken at this time of night, but, as the House knows, there are occasions when it is necessary to sit a few hours beyond the ordinary time when Bills have to be got through in a certain time. This Bill is essentially one of these measures. At present the coal owners are receiving money and have in their own hands money which has come from the State. The result is that the State has to make advances of money. There is not a single Member of the House who feels that the Bill must be carried who does not recognise that it must be carried as soon as possible. We did not wish to force on "the matter. We gave notice that we meant to take this procedure. We put it off until to-day on representations from some of my hon. Friends opposite. We do not intend and never did intend to have an all night sitting. What we do intend is to make progress, to sit perhaps for an hour, or at most two, and make what progress we can, and then try to finish
the Bill by the same method at another sitting. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to recognise that this is a Bill to be dealt with without delay. It is a question of time. It is not a case in which the convenience of hon. Members should be the sole consideration. I appeal to the House to allow us to make progress in this matter without sitting to any late hour.

Mr. HOLMES: I quite agree that in the interests of the coal industry this Bill should become law as quickly as possible if it is intended, as undoubtedly the Government intend, that it should become law. The colliery companies at present are in a state of the utmost confusion with regard to the accounts and do not know how they stand as from the 1st April last year. I think it ought to be pointed out that the position in which we are now is undoubtedly due to Government delay. This Bill—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That will not be relevant. The only question before us is whether we shall proceed with this Bill now, or adjourn the Debate.

Mr. HOLMES: The point I want to make is that this is a matter on which those who are interested should have the opportunity of full discussion at a time when it is easier to debate. This Bill could have been introduced at any time during last year after the report of the Sankey Commission, as it is based on the recommendations of the Sankey Report.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friend wants to be reasonable. We did introduce a Bill to carry out what we thought was the Sankey Report. The House well understands the ground on which it was withdrawn. We never had an opportunity, owing to the financial position, to proceed with the matter until now.

Mr. HOLMES: That is just the point I want to make. A Bill was introduced, based on the Sankey Report, at the end of November, the Sankey Report having come out in March. At any time between March and November the Government could have introduced this Bill. If it had been introduced in October or during the summer the whole thing would have been settled long ago, and the collieries would not have been —

Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. What have we to do? Are we to go on now or not?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Baronet will permit me, I am here to watch that.

Mr. HOLMES: I am sorry if what I am saying is objectionable.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member my view as to relevancy.

Mr. HOLMES: I think I have said all I want to say.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a question of consulting the convenience of members of the House. It is a question of whether we can carry on sound legislation at this time of night. It is all very well for hon. Members to scoff, but there are very few hon. Members opposite who have read this Bill. It is undoubtedly the most difficult Bill to understand that has ever been introduced in this House, and to approach a Bill like this, and to amend it in detail at the end of a long day's sitting after eleven o'clock, is perfectly ridiculous. I happen to have been through this Bill with a specialist, and it took us two solid hours to get the hang of what it meant. I defy any ordinary Member of Parliament to understand what we are debating at this hour in such a conflicting Bill. The Leader of the House and the Minister of Labour both assume that it was an impossibility to deal with this Bill at all unless we dealt with it at night. That is not a fact at all. The arrangement come to concerning supply was that it should conclude on Thursday of next week. After Thursday there are still three or four further days. There is Friday; there are Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the following week. It is understood that two of those days are to be allotted to the Home Rule Bill, but there is no reason why Wednesday should not be allotted to the discussion of this Bill at some time of day when it could be treated with the respect that it deserves, and with that close consideration which alone can put the coal trade on a firm footing. Now we are told that unless we deal with it in this way the whole coal industry will come to a standstill. Nothing of the sort. The industry will go on whether we pass this Bill now or not. The only difficulty is that the colliery accounts cannot be made up, but coal will go on being produced and burned.: To say that the non-passage of this Bill in this rushed manner will upset the
whole of the coal industry is nothing short of nonsense. It may be an inconvenience to the accountants, but coal will go on being produced. It is much better that we should pass the Bill after due consideration rather than rush it through by the threat that the industry will come to a standstill unless something is done. It has taken the Government a long time to discover the immediate urgency of the Bill. If consideration is postponed till Wednesday week we shall be able to consider it at a proper time.

Mr. BRACE: After consultation, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be helpful to waste the time of the House by a discussion. As we have registered our protest in the only effective way open to us, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "deduction" ["such deduction and additions "], and to insert instead thereof the word "deductions."
The object of this Amendment is to reintroduce into the Bill the language which it contained when it was introduced by the Government. On the Second Reading a very big majority was given by the House in favour of the Bill as it then stood. The Bill then provided that certain deductions should be made from the aggregate profit standard, and one of those deductions was the expenses of the Coal Control Department. We on these benches were very dissatisfied with the financial provisions of the Bill as introduced, but for reasons which we gave when the Bill was under discussion, we did not move any Amendments to the Financial Clauses. In the Second Reading discussion there was no indication by any Member of the House or by any representative of the coal owners that they wanted any improved conditions as compared with those which the Government had embodied in the Bill. In Committee upstairs the coalowners proposed an Amendment to delete the Clause which provided that the costs of the administration of the Coal Control Department should be charged on the profits of the owners. The Government accepted that Amendment, which means that the annual charge of £750,000, a sum
which represents the working expenses of the Coal Control Department which the Bill originally provided should be taken out of the profits of the coal owners, now becomes a charge upon the national Exchequer. We want by this Amendment to insert "deductions" instead of "deduction" for the purpose of reintroducing that Clause, making good the cost of the Coal Control Department for the profits of the coal owners. I do not think any substantial reason will be given why the Bill as introduced by the Government should be improved as it has been improved, in favour of the coal owners. The Bill provided, as it stood, twenty-six million pounds profit for the coal owners, and in the best five years the coal owners ever had prior to the war the profit was thirteen million pounds. That included profits on coke and by-products. The profits pre-war on coke and by-products amounted to about £1,000,000 per year. Now the coalowners get £26,000,000 per year, plus their profits on coke and by-products. When this matter was discussed before the Coal Industry Commission it was estimated that the profits on coke and by-products were about £6,000,000, but anyone who has been following the rise in the prices of coke and by-products since the date of the Coal Industry Commission will realise that the profits from that source to-day must be enormously in excess of £6,000,000 per year. Probably to-day they are not less than double that amount. Therefore you have £26,000,000 profit on coal, plus a possible £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 on coke and by-products. You have, probably, £36,000,000 or more, as compared with £13,000,000 pre-war, profits on coal, coke and by-products. What earthly reason can be assigned for the Government, having introduced a Bill which gives such favourable conditions to the coalowners, afterwards agreeing to amend it at the request of the coalowners to give them further benefits? The sole object of the amendment is to reintroduce the Clause as it originally appeared in the Bill, and to carry out the first intention of the Government. It is a Clause for which, I think, nearly every member on the opposite side of the House voted on the Second Reading.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. The Labour Party opposed
this Bill on Second Reading on three principle grounds. The first reason was that the Bill made provision only for continuing the coal control until August 31st next. No provision has been made either in this Bill or in any other way, so far as we know, for the control being continued after that date. Our second reason was that the Bill, as it was then drafted, gave far too large profits to the colliery companies. Our third reason was that there was no guarantee in the Bill with regard to the wages of the workman. If the Bill as it stood on Second Reading was objectionable, it is far more objectionable to-night, for this reason: In the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave concessions to the coal owners which increased the profits and made the Bill more valuable from their point of view. This was done in face of the fact that on Second Reading there was no protest made on behalf of those who usually speak for the coal owners in this House that the terms of the Bill were not of a generous character so far as they were concerned. I do not know of any objection to the terms of the Bill on Second Reading. Notwithstanding that, when we got upstairs into Committee they had a series of Amendments to put forward seeking con cession after concession from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and the one my hon. Friends Amendment deals with is one that was very readily granted by the Parliamentary Secretary. Notwithstanding all our protests and our arguments, the Parliamentary Secretary gives this valuable concession to those who are representing the coal owners, and consequently the Bill as it now stands is even more objectionable to the Members of the Labour Party than it was as originally drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) thought we could have seen some reason for this concession being granted to coalowners if the provision in the Bill as originally drafted had not been of a generous nature so far as coalowners were concerned, but, as has been pointed out, this Bill, without the concessions that we are contesting through this Amendment, give to the coal owners double their pre-War profits. I am not sure that the Members of the Committee fully understand the generous provision that was made to the coalowners in the terms of the Bill as origin ally drafted. I am not sure that if they
had understood them correctly they would not have supported us to a greater extent in trying to prevent this concession being granted. If one followed the earnings of the coalowners back to a further date than the one already quoted by my hon. Friend, and took the last 30 years of the coal trade, it would be seen that for the last 25 years the average earnings of the coalowners amounted to £9,000,000. This Bill, as it originally stood, provided for giving them £26,000,000, or double the profit they earned for the five years previous to the War—£13,000,000. I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who appears to be in charge of the Bill, will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE: If my right hon. Friend refers to me, I am afraid he is giving me an entirely exuberant and inaccurate description.

Mr. ADAMSON: Possibly coming events cast their shadows before. How-ever, if I am too previous I withdraw, but I appeal to the Minister who is in charge of the Bill to-night to accept the Amendment. I can assure him that the Bill as originally drafted was very objectionable to us, but with the concession that was granted in Committee it is still more objectionable.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment described with perfect fairness the facts relating to it, and the light hon. Gentleman who seconded it also said, with perfect truth, that it was one of a series of Amendments moved by those representing the colliery owners upstairs. It is the only one which the Committee accepted, and they accepted it on my advice, and because I thought, and I think now, that it was a fair arrangement. As the Bill originally stood, it was intended to provide for the 2s. Sankey wage being established for the miners, and for a certain arrangement as to profits to the coal owners. It is quite true that in the original Bill the expenses of the Coal Control Department, and those involved in the application of Regulation 2JJ. would have been deducted before the calculation was made for the owners' profits. As the result of the passing of the Amendment upstairs, the
costs of the Coal Controller's Department, and the expenses in connection with 2JJ., come out of the pool after the owners' profits have been determined. In speaking upstairs with regard to the amount involved, I put the cost of the Coal Control at £750,000, which I have since found was rather too much; and I put the expenses in connection with 2JJ. at £500,000, which I think is probably more than they will be; but anyhow the extreme amount was £1,250,000. What the movers of this Amendment are contending for is that the Sankey wage established under this Bill should be given to them without any consideration of first paying for the cost of control, but that the money given to the owners should not be paid until a deduction has been made for the cost of control; that is to say, they ask, "Give us our wages without considering the cost of control at all, but before you give what it is settled shall be given to the owners, deduct those expenses from the total amount out of which you calculate the owners' profits." That seemed to me to be unfair, and I also found that in the case of all the other controls the arrangement which the Treasury made was similar to the one which now stands in the Bill. The whole question to-night is whether the cost of control and the expenses in connection with 2JJ. should be taken out of the pool after the owners' profits have been calculated, or before. The actual financial effect is this. I think everyone, including hon. Members opposite, will admit that it is tolerably sure that there will be a sufficient amount in the pool to pay to the owners in full the pre-war standard as arranged under the Bill. Therefore, the only effect of this is that the owners will get one-tenth of the £1,250,000, if it amounts to that—probably it will be more like £1,000,000—and on that they will have to pay excess profits duty for this year. The total amount, without deducting excess profits duty, which they can get by this arrangement, is £125,000. That is a very small sum to make a great fuss about when we are talking about many millions. It is still smaller as compared with the amount of the wages. When the wages bill comes to £225,000,000, £100,000 one way or the other is not very important. But whether it is important or not, it seems to me, and I still think it was fair, that it should be
arranged in this way, and that it should follow the precedent which governs the other controls, and should come out of the profits, after both the owners' share and the miners' share had been paid.

Sir C. CORY: After what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has said, it would be a scandal to debit the expenses of a Government Department to private profits. The hon. Gentlemen opposite are very fond of describing the coalowner as a very large, wealthy man, but there are very few of that description in the coal trade. The coal trade, as we know now, is in the hands of limited liability companies, and there are no less than 150,000 or 160,000 shareholders of these companies in this country, some of them whose whole means of subsistence is derived from those shares, and who are very much worse off to-day than the miners are. These people are entitled to a great deal more sympathy than are the miners, who are making very high wages, whereas the shareholders have very often got very small incomes and have to pay income tax. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) is fond of describing the coal-owners' profits as much greater under this Bill than they were before the War. I should like to give the House some figures as regards coalowners' profits and miners' wages. In 1913 the wages per ton of coal raised were 6s. 4d. a ton; in 1919 the wages were 19s. 6d., that is to say, an increase of 205 per cent. In other words, they earned £91,000,000 in 1913 and £225,000,000 in 1919, an increase of £134,000,000 for the miners. In face of these figures can anyone pretend that they have not done very well?

Mr. HARTSHORN: What is the difference in the number of men employed?

Mr. W. THORNE: What about the rate of production?

Sir C. CORY: The number of men employed is very much the same now as before the War, or very slightly more. As to the rate of production, it is less, because it is in the hands of the miners themselves. They have pressed for a seven hour day instead of an eight hour day, and although there are more men in the mines to-day, they are working less per man than before the War, so that if
the production is less it is their own fault. If the miners would earn more it would be better for the coalowners. Let us see what the profits of the coalowners were in 1913. In 1913 their profits were £18,460,000, after deducting income tax and excluding by-products. In 1919, on the 1913 capital, they were £22,000,000, and if we add £600,000, the ten per cent. under this Bill, that makes £22,600,000 they would get under this Bill. Take off the Excess Profits duty of £240,000 and you get £22,360,000. But if you deduct the income tax from that, as I have done in the 1913 figure, the amount-of net profit is £15,630,000, which is a decrease of £2,834,000 in 1919 compared with 1913. Instead of an increased profit they are getting less than they did in 1913. These poor shareholders, many of whom are small people, pay income tax according to their grade. [An HON. MEMBER: "The miners do not get clear."] They do not pay what they ought to. The shareholders will get a decreased income, while the increased cost of living is applicable to them in the same way as to the coalminers. They get a decrease of £2,800,000, compared with the £134,000,000 more which the coalminers have got. Yet these gentlemen have the audacity to come to this House and talk about this paltry sum which they say should be charged against the coalowners. The miners will get neither more nor less whichever way it goes. But they desire that no benefit should be allowed to the coalowners by getting this just addition to make up their normal profits. I hope the hon. Gentleman will stick to the claims of the Bill.

Mr. BRACE: I am sure that the statements of the hon. Baronet who has just addressed the House will only make us press more heavily than ever in support of the Amendment. During his speech I was wondering whether the reports I have been reading of late were really correct. Judging by the statements of the coalowners they are really in a bad way, and they ought to have some kind of charge upon the National Exchequer to help them. It was only a day or two ago that I read a report of one of the companies in Wales, where they intended to give the shareholders an enormous advantage in the shape of a bonus. It is no use disguising the fact that there is a strong feeling amongst the working men in the mines because
the coalowners are getting much more than they ought to.

Sir C. CORY: They are misled.

Mr. BRACE: The best we can do is to judge by what we see in the daily papers—the reports of the annual meetings of the colliery companies. I have never heard of a coalowner who was prepared to admit that he ever made any money at all. They invariably "live on their losses." When they had passed away, it was found that they left very substantial fortunes behind. That is not quite my point, which was to give the Government an opportunity of carrying out their first intentions believing that they were the best. If the Government thought that the proposal which they accepted in Grand Committee was a proper proposal then they should here incorporate that proposal in the Bill. All that the Labour Party is doing is to help the Government to carry out what they were convinced, after a careful survey of the problem, was simple justice, not only to the coal owners but to the miners and to the nation.

Mr. HOLMES: What everyone wants at the present time in the coal industry is peace: that is all the coal owners want, and that is all the miners want. Any-thing that adds a word in the way of irritation is to be deplored. The proposal before us is going back to the original proposal of the Government. This showed that the cost of the Coal Controller should be deducted from the profits before the coal owner got the one-tenth extra. On the Amendment my hon. Friend opposite got the Government to give way, and agree that this deduction should not be made. What does it come to? The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it amounts to one-tenth of, possibly, a million pounds, or £100,000. Out of this the coal owners have to pay back to the Treasury £40,000, which leaves £60,000. Deduct income tax at 6s. in the £, and in some cases, at least, super-tax, and after excess-duty, income and super-tax has been paid you will find that the amount is £30,000. Under the Bill the coal owners are going to get each year £22,000,000 as the standard; £4,000,000 of increased interest on an increased capital of £26,000,000; and 1–10th of anything beyond. They are thus going to get something between £26,000,000 and £30,000,000. And the
hon. Gentleman puts forward this Amendment which the Government accepts simply for the sake of getting another £30,000 which is 1–10th of one per cent! Surely it is absolutely absurd for the Government to bring in a Bill like this, and that they should cause all this anger on the one side for a paltry £30,000, for which I do not believe ninety-nine out of every hundred coalowners care two-pence! We want peace. All these pin-pricks, stupid suggestions and ridiculous acceptance of Amendments by the Government are not helping us to get the peace which is so necessary, not only for the coal industry but for the whole industry of the country.

Sir R. HORNE: I am very reluctant to intervene in this discussion at all. But having no familiarity with the proceedings in Committee on this Bill, I think I can claim to bring an entirely fresh mind to this problem, and, I hope, an impartial mind. So far as the question before the House goes, I think it can be viewed with entire coolness of mind, and not at all from the point of view the last speaker took. It really is not a question at all of peace in the coal industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, yes."] I think I know my friends in that industry very well, and I am perfectly sure that they are not going to make a cause of quarrel or of peace out of this paltry little point. It does not involve a very large sum of money, and considering the matter from that point of view it might just as well be suggested that the Government are foolish in not giving way, as that, on the other hand, ray hon. Friends on the Benches opposite are foolish in pressing the point. Therefore, I think we can leave these considerations on one side or the other entirely out of account. The whole question is—sup-posing we were approaching this matter for the first time, what would we do and say about it? How would one make the deduction for the cost of running the concern? I do not believe there are two opinions about it, looking at it apart altogether from the coal question. Take any industry you like. Suppose the Government considers that the needs of the State require that a Department should be set up to deal with a particular industry. I am perfectly certain that those who represent the wage-earners of the country would protest—and rightly so—if the Government insisted that the cost of the
control should be paid out of the wages of the workers in that particular industry, and I agree that they would be justified in their protest. Does it not follow equally that one would say that the Government would be wrong if it proposed to take from the pockets of those who had previously run the industry the cost of this new departure which the State has thought it necessary to embark upon.

Mr. HOLMES: That is just what the Government did propose to do in the original draft of the Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, it is the point, I agree, but I was asking my hon. Friends to approach this question without any regard to any previous proposal, and to suppose that to-day we were setting up a Government Department to deal with any industry in the country for the first time. I want, then, to leave out of account what may have been done in a previous Bill. I am perfectly certain that every right-minded man would say that while the Government must stand the cost of the Department which it chooses to set up it must not interfere either with the wages of the wage-earners or with the profits of the persons who have been previously conducting the industry. I am certain I shall get the assent of my hon. Friends to that proposition. The only point they make is, therefore, that the Government in the original draft of the Bill proposed something different. And if that is the only point then it is merely a point of prejudice, and it does not affect the merits of the case. Coming, then, to the question with an entirely fresh mind, I think that the original draft which my hon. Friend advocates was based on an entirely erroneous principle. It would not be regarded as fair to anybody if considered in the light of a first view of the situation. If that be so, why should it be suggested that because the Government originally proposed something different they should now be committed to it any more than that if they had proposed the cost should come out of the wages of the wage-earners they should be committed to that course. I ask the House to look at this from an impartial point of view and to pass the Clause in the form in which the Committee has left it.

Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentle-man who hag just spoken has pointed out
that the original wording of the Bill was founded upon an erroneous principle. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade repeated here what he said to the Committee upstairs—that he did not think it right that the cost of coal control any more than any other control should be cast on the owners of the industry controlled. But when the hon. Baronet raised this question in Committee he did not raise it as a matter of principle at all. He raised it because he thought the owners ought to be relieved of as much of the financial burden as possible; indeed he went so far, in moving his Amendment upstairs, as to say he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this was not Treasury money which was being dealt with but what were involved were the profits of the coal trade, and they wanted to know why any deduction should be made from those profits. He went on to tell us that neither the war wage nor many other things ought to fall on the owners, and it was only after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had discovered that in no other industry was the cost of the control borne by the owner that he decided that in this instance it should not come out of the owner's pockets. May I point out on the general principle that if that has been followed in other cases it is not necessary it should therefore be followed in the case of the coal industry. Anyone who knows anything about coal control knows it is an absolutely necessary part of the mining organisation at the present time, and has been over since its establishment, and is as much a Department of the mines industry at the present time as the official staff at the colliery office. If it had not been for the coal control, Sir Auckland Geddes has told us, there would have been chaos in the country. We know it. We know we should have had in the colliery districts in the export trade demands for large increases of wages, while in the case of the inland trade districts owners would have been claiming to reduce wages, and chaos and strikes would have prevailed throughout the whole industry. I venture to say that the coal control has rendered a great service not merely to the industry itself but to the whole country. I just want to say this in conclusion. It is amazing that the coal owners should raise this question on the ground of the burden on the industry
and on the profits and on the general plea of relief to shareholders who do not pay the super Income Tax. Every morning and almost every evening as well one reads advertisements in the newspapers—some of them occupying whole pages—telling us about nationalisation and all the rest of it. Leaflets, pamphlets and books are being sent into people's houses. We know that there are paid organisers. If they can stand the burden of financing the people who are turning out these books and pamphlets, and of paying these organisers, it is not a very great matter to ask them to bear the cost of the control which has led to general peace in the industry, which would not have been secured otherwise. We who are connected with the industry, and who are involved in it in as many ways as the owners, say that it is a just principle that the industry ought to bear the weight of its own control, and incidentally the, owners profits. It does not seem to me that the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in relation to wages had any real bearing upon the subject any more than the hon. Baronets comparison of the dividends of the poor shareholder and the increased wages of the miner. Even would the increase of 100 or 150 per cent.—

Sir C. CORY: The increase is 205 per cent.

Mr. LAWSON: Take it at 205 per cent. if you like. I daresay there are many miners in the 205 per cent. who would be willing to put their wages and the 205 per cent. increase together and swap wages with the hon. Baronet.

Mr. T. WILSON: Had it not been for a statement by the hon. Baronet (Sir. C. Cory) I would not have intervened. He forgets that if there was no mineral under the land there would be no miners and no mine owners; but as there are minerals miners are necessary. He seems to seek to treat the miner as a soulless inanimate thing. The mine owners, the 160,000 shareholders must have their dividends whether miners get a wage or not.

Sir. C. CORY: I did not say that.

Mr. WILSON: You did not say it, but the suggestion was there. You cannot get away from it. The poor shareholders must have their dividend whether miners who earn the dividends are paid a wage or not.

Sir C. CORY: I never made any such suggestion. I simply compared the position of the poor shareholder with that of the miner. I did not say that the miner should not get his wages. I said that, while miners were getting 205 per cent. increase in wages, the shareholder was only getting the pre-war dividend.

Mr. WILSON: The shareholder may have £500 or £5,000 a year, but if the miners are getting £300 a year in wages that is wrong. The Minister of Labour said this is a trivial matter, and that it does not matter on which side the £30,000 drops. Yesterday the matter that was very trivial from your point of view—the question of the dismissal of a foreman—caused a strike in the House of Commons. The people concerned did not consider it a trivial matter. They said that an injustice had been done and that the man who was the cause of the injustice must go and he had to go. If it is a question of £30,000 or whatever it may be, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the miners will sit down quietly and accept a clause of this sort? Why not face the situation and accept the amendment so that the people who suffer least should bear the burden. I am afraid that both the companies and the miners consider that this is a miners' question. It is not. It is a consumers' question, and an injustice will be done to the consumers if the Government do not accept the Amendment. I am satisfied that the Amendment is just. Personally, I do not want to sec the shareholders in colliery companies applying for outdoor relief. I do not think that many of them will whether the Amendment is accepted or not.

Sir C. CORY: You only take the profitable concerns. You leave out those that are losing money.

Mr. WILSON: The hon. Baronet ignores the 999 that are paying big dividends and puts forward the one that must suffer—and it is very doubtful whether it will suffer or not. Therefore this House ought not to be camouflaged in the manner that is attempted into the belief that the whole industry of the country and the welfare of the shareholders and everybody else are going to suffer if the Government accept the Amendment. I would suggest that if the Government accept the Amendment they will probably get the Bill without very much further opposition. Moreover, if they accept the
Amendment they can rest satisfied that the working of this Bill will be a great deal smoother. I am only taking human nature as it is, and what happened yesterday may—I hope it will not—happen in connection with the operation of this Bill if you do not accept the Amendment, and if the Government believe that the Bill was a better Bill without the provision in it I would appeal to the Government even at the eleventh hour to accept the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: The object of this Amendment is to take certain sums out of the pool before the owners themselves have the percentage which is allowed by this Bill. If that sum was the only sum in dispute, the probabilities are that there would not be any very serious contention so far as these benches are concerned; but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have to consider the controversial result in relationship to the general application of the provisions of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. In interviewing very responsible representatives of the Government we have been told that, so far as the provisions of the Sankey Report are concerned, the Government seek to give, in the letter and the spirit, effect to those recommendations. I am not now dealing with the question of nationalisation. So far as the financial provisions of this Bill ate concerned, the Government are proposing provisions which go very far in excess of what was recommended by Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. Mr. Justice Sankey recommended that the profits of all the colliery owners should be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton. We were told by responsible Ministers of the Crown that the Government were going to give effect to the recommendation, but the Government are not giving effect to the recommendation. They have departed from it and are now proposing to the colliery owners a sum far in excess of the amount that would have been reached by the simple process of 1s. 2d. per ton. Therefore, that strengthens our opposition to this provision to give a further £125,000 to the colliery owners in addition to the substantial sum already provided for in the Bill. May I turn for one moment to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) in relation to the miners' wages? I fail to understand where he got his information.

Sir C. CORY: All the figures I gave were official.

Mr. SPENCER: A very distinguished colleague of his of the South Wales Miners' Federation, speaking not on behalf of the South Wales Miners' Federation, but on behalf of the whole mining industry of Great Britain, gave figures before the Commission, and the figures he himself gave on behalf of the owners, do not agree with the statement which has been made in this House to-night by the hon. Baronet.
May I give what the percentages are that miners have actually received since 1913? In 1913 the wage of the miner was 6s. 5.64d. per day. That was the average wage. In 1918 that rose to 12s. 6d., or 93.20 per cent. In 1920, when we received the 2s. Sankey wage, it rose to 122.70 per cent., and that was what the miners have obtained since 1913, and that was agreed to by the Government in 10, Downing Street. The Prime Minister himself has not objected to those figures, and the Coal Controller has not objected to those figures. As a matter of fact, our deputations have met deputations representing the Coal Controller's Office and have accepted those figures. There are representatives of the Government on the Front Bench to-night who have been at the same meeting as the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and they know that repeatedly our representatives have made representations to the Government for the purpose of arriving at a policy. All the statements made by the hon. Baronet are incorrect.

Sir C. CORY: They are correct.

Mr. SPENCER: They are not correct. We will agree to differ.

Sir C. CORY: The figures I gave were official.

Mr. SPENCER: I only wish that the final verdict should rest upon the question of whether the hon. Baronet was right or whether I was right. It it did rest there I would be prepared to leave it, because we know that he did not get his £125,000. The hon. Baronet said that the profits in 1913 were over £18,000,000. Does that include the five or six millions for Royalty rents, and is the latter figure which he has given for 1920?

Sir C. CORY: They are both on the same basis.

Mr. SPENCER: They do not include Royalty rents?

Sir C. CORY: No, I do not think so,

Mr. SPENCER: I think one includes royalty rents and the other does not. The 1913 figure includes royalty rents. That is why the pre-war standard is only £13,500,000, and now we have £26,000,000. As a matter of fact the two best years that the colliery-owners have had since the Franco-German war—they can take all the years intervening between them and 1912 and 1913 and they will not be able to find two years between them and that time which will equal those two years of profit. Those extraordinary years have been taken as the pre-war standard, and now the standard is to be increased from £13,500,000 to over £626,000,000. That is a very extraordinary figure, and the colliery-owners should be satisfied, and I believe that they are satisfied. The one strange thing to see tonight is this. Only one solitary voice has been raised on behalf of the colliery-owners in this House. I should think most of them are, ashamed to come here and use the time of the House to extract a sum which does not amount to £1 per head per shareholder in the whole of the undertakings. If that were granted it would have engaged the attention of the House.
In relation to the method of calculation the hon. Gentleman says that we have 22 millions. It is nearer 28 than 22 millions. But let us assume that the amount is 22 millions. He makes certain deductions. I wonder what would happen if I led a deputation next week and said to the owners, "Our workmen are only getting so much per day," and they brought their books and said, "It is 2s. more per day," and we said, "Ah, but we have deducted income-tax "? If the hon. Gentleman is correct in coming to this House and is going to say, "This is what we are entitled to and are going to get, after deducting excess profits and income-tax," we should be justified in going to the owners and saying, "The net returns are so much because we have deducted income-tax." For these reasons we are opposing these conditions to-night, and I think that the representatives of the Government should give heed to the plea put forward by the representatives on these benches, because we feel perfectly satisfied that, in the provisions of
the Bill, the owners are not making a great deal out of it. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen here that this will not make for peace and harmony and accord in these undertakings. A good many of us on this side of the House have had a fair share of turmoil and unrest, and the provision of the the 26 millions is not going down well with the men outside. There will be increasing demands made by the workers when the knowledge that the profits of the colliery-owners will be so lavishly increased and that, on the top of the £26,000,000 or £28,000,000 you will have only this paltry sum. This shows that the owners have come here, not to get justice, but in the strength of Shylock; to get the last pound.

Sir EVAN JONES: I am going to appeal to the Government and to ask them to reconsider their decision on this matter. I am going to do it because all the difference between the arguments on both sides is so very slight. The right hon. Gentleman, the Minister for Labour, put the case for the Government, on the question of principle, and said that a mistake had been made. As a matter of abstract justice I think that is probably true, but I would ask the light hon. Gentleman to consider this. In effect, what will happen? The State will pay, even if they accept this amendment, 90 per cent. of the costs. He obtains the essence of the principle which he is endeavouring to establish. I think there is such a very little difference, that he might well give way on that difference. I would like to say one other word. It was an unfortunate analogy on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to confuse wages and profits. Wages are included in the cost of production. Profits are entirely different; they are calculated after the cost of production is met. Wages are part of the cost of production. I think that analogy was unfortunate. Equally unfortunate—possibly more so—was the attempted analogy of the right hon. Baronet below me (Sir C. Cory) in some of the figures which he tried to bring before the House, or rather the inferences he went on to draw from some of the figures he put before the House.
There has been a great deal of confusion on the question of figures in connection with this matter. There is one clear ascertained fact which emerges from all
these calculations. The profits of the coal-mining industry for the average of the five pre-war years, after making all the necessary adjustments on account of the various matters that have been mentioned, were undoubtedly £11,500,000 a year.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Excluding royalties and coke.

Sir E. JONES: Yes. If what was known as the one and twopenny Bill had passed the profits which the owners would have obtained would have been £19,000,000, including the £4,000,000 allowed for interest on additional capital during the war. Under this Bill the owners will get £26,000,000. Of that there is no doubt. The question of income tax which the hon. Baronet brought forward has no more to do with the question than that of wages. Income tax is only paid on ascertained profits. It is not only coal owners who pay income tax. Other people do so. After all, when this comes to be applied to the pool the Government pay 90 per cent. of the cost of control and the pool pays 10 per cent. I object to calling these owners' profits. They are pool profits, out of which the owners take their whack and the Government take their whack, and in respect of their particular whacks one pays 90 per cent. and the other pays 10 per cent. The difference is so small that I think the Government might very well give way on this matter.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The point under discussion appears to be miners' wages, but I do not think that miners' wages have anything to do with the matter which, as I understand it, is that certain arrangements are to be entered into with the coal owners for the purpose of meeting other arrangements for the financial working of the coal industry. A Bill was passed through this House in which there were certain financial provisions which compared with previous provisions of £9,000,000, £13,000,000 and £26,000,000. I do not think that even that has got any thing to do with the matter.
I am not a business man, but common horse sense would dictate to me that when these financial arrangements were discussed under this Bill the cost of coal control would be taken into consideration and the coal owners would get value for the cost of coal control. What we are
objecting to is that while they have been well provided for in the way of profits, they should now ask that an alteration should be made to get rid of something for which they were previously given credit. The amount may be very small, but already there have been two deals in the coal trade between the Government and the coal owners. In one of these deals it was a question of £25,000,000. The coal owners got £5,000,000 of that, and I wonder what the Government would have had to say if we had asked for £5,000,000 to build miners' houses. We have now a matter of £750,000 in hand to pay the coal owners. This is really £750,000 of the taxpayers' money. I am prepared to admit that it is a very small sum to quarrel about, but after the statement made by the hon. Baronet I sincerely hope that the miners' members will fight it to the last ditch. The hon. Baronet says that it matters nothing to the miners why not let the coal owners get it? So far as the miners' representatives are concerned, if the coal owners are not entitled to it, I sincerely hope no group of Labour men in this house will ever be prepared to make a bargain with capitalists for even £10 of the taxpayers' money. Speaking about miners' wages, we will discuss wages and costs in another place, but the coal owners having got out of the coal trade £9,000,000, £13,000,000, and then £26,000,000, they now insult us by imagining that we should be so dishonest to the miners or to the general public over a matter of £750,000 as to let the coal owners get it. To that we shall never agree.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a question between the mine owners and the miners. It is a question between the mine owners and the public, and I think the public point of view ought to be amplified. We object to this Bill entirely, because although based upon five pre-war years the mine owners of the country ought to have got £11,500,000, under the Bill of last year that £11,500,000 was raised to £15,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "£19,000,000."] That is with the £4,000,000 interest on additional capital. The coal owners now press us to raise the amount from £15,000,000 to £22,000,000, again excluding the interest on new capital and excluding the enormous profits from coke and by-pro-duets. That is an alarming scale of
increase due solely to the pressure brought by the mining interest upon the Government. Why we protest against this specific surrender of the Government is that it is merely symptomatic of what they have done when pressure has been brought to bear upon them by the mining interests.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite says he approaches the question with an impartial mind. AH I can say is he ought not to have an impartial mind. It is his business to look after the interests of the taxpayer and the interests of the consumer. To say that he approaches the question of whether more money should be filched from the taxpayers of this country with an impartial mind is I think, not the right way of dealing with a question of this magnitude. The demands of the mining industry are going up and up. I have not been so unfortunate as my right hon. Friend opposite in my acquaintance with colliery companies. Generally speaking they pay a very substantial rate of interest, but it is not the rate of interest which interests me half so much as the way in which they issue shares, increasing their capital about 200 or 300 per cent. below the marked price. One need not take these shares up. It is an extremely profitable proposition. That is the way in which these things are concealed. You need not pay dividends nowadays, you do it so much more simply by issuing shares and letting the shareholders have them at a substantial discount. After all, so far as the shareholder is concerned, he is probably more satisfied than otherwise because he escapes the 6s. Income Tax and other charges. He merely finds his capital increased without having the State interfering too closely with the way in which his income has increased. Now we have to find this additional £4,000,000 interest. It is not an increase of real capital, but either in water of that sort or in the purchase of unworked minerals, which are not being worked at the present time, but which are being bought at a very high price, and naturally consume a large amount of additional capital which is not bringing in interest, but the interest is charged against the consumer, and is included in this £4,000,000.
We object to the rise from £11,500,000 to £15,000,000, and we object still more to the rise from £15,000,000 to £22,000,000,
and the only way in which we can register our protest is against this further rise of another £126,000 a year. Let it not be said that £125,000 is all that we are saddling upon the British taxpayer in this matter. We all know that it is a question now whether we shall not, sooner or later, nationalise the mining industry and pay compensation. If it is a question of compensation, obviously the amount of the total profits of the industry will be one of the things considered. If we give them this increase of an additional £125,000 a year, we have to buy them out at 20 or 25 years' purchase—if I know the industry they will screw it up to 30 years' purchase if they can. This £125,000 will be multiplied thirty times, and £125,000 will bring out a nice little additional £4,005,000 for the shareholders of these companies. That is what we have to look at. It is all very well to say that it is only £125,000, and to whittle it away by talking of super-tax and excess profits and Income Tax, but we have to consider that the reason why these mine owners forced the Government to oppose that amendment in Committee was not on account of the small additional profits they would get, but because thereby they were laying the foundations for bigger claims when this industry comes to be nationalised.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I would not have risen at this very early hour had it not been for the remarks of the right hon. Baronet. He said there were coal owners who were working their concerns at a loss to themeslves. It has been my good fortune, or my misfortune, to have met these people, and to have discussed matters of wages with them. I remember during the War meeting the coal owners in the county to which I have the distinguished honour to belong, in the endeavour to fix up a conciliation board, with a view to preventing strikes. I hate and detest strikes, and I believe this resolution now before the House will go far to help us to solve difficulties and settle matters in the coal trade. I remember meeting these people and trying to fix it so that our wages might be regulated on a profits basis. We suggested to the owners of the county that the average profits of the whole of the concern should be the basis on which bur wages should be allocated. But the owners pointed out that before
we, as miners, could take any wages at all, the very worst concern in the county had to be made to pay. So much for the losses that the owners are going to sustain in carrying on any concern. So that, out of their own mouths, they stand convicted so far as that, matter is concerned. We miners sometimes: read the reports of your companies, and watch with interest what they do. At least one big concern in the county to which I belong declared a dividend of 35 per cent. for the year 1913. In addition, they gave to every £l shareholder another £2. That is how the coal owners work out their own salvation, leaving the miners to fight their battles as best they can. May I appeal to the Government to go back to the Bill as it was introduced. As I said, I hate and detest strikes in any shape or form. They are the last thing that ought to occur if we can avoid them, and I plead with the Government to help us to keep the industry in as peaceable a mood as possible. After all, let hon. Gentlemen opposite remember this, that had the wages of the miners in the County of Durham been regulated on the old scale prior to the War, they would have been from 6s. to 8s. higher than they are to-day, so that we have made sacrifices for the sake of the consumer. Surely the owners can make a sacrifice in the interests of the consumer. It is not a question between the mineowners and the miners; it is a public question, and my final word is to ask the Government to accept the Amendment as a means to peace and in fairness to the people who consume the coal that is hewed,

1.0 A.M.

Mr. WATERSON: I enter into this Debate, not exactly with an impartial mind, but as a very interested enquirer, and as one who is interested in this matter and who has listened to the Debates very attentively. I am not a miner, and I am not a mine owner. Neither have I any shares in mines. I happen to represent a constituency that, with the exception of two ironstone mines, has no mines in it at all. I think, at any rate, that I can express an opinion, so far as my constituency is concerned, from the consumers' standpoint. I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Labour, say that he approached
this with a fair and impartial mind. As soon as I heard the statement I began to wonder whether there was a form of political disease among the Cabinet. I am reminded when I approach this question of a statement made in this House many years ago. It was made by that venerable old statesman whose name is revered, I believe, in almost every home in this country, I refer to the Grand Old Man, Mr. Gladstone. In 1854 Mr. Gladstone said—[Interruption.] It does not matter at any rate to me whether at that time Mr. Gladstone was a Conservative, Liberal or a Labour man. The illustration which I am going to give is a very important one. He said at that time that war was an opportunity which was afforded to heroes to secure immortal renown, and which also gave an opportunity to contractors for erecting colossal fortunes. So far as the past five years is concerned, there is a class that has been erecting colossal fortunes at the expense of the country, which has been bled very white, and I think the mineowners form a great deal of that category. We are told that the profits that have accumulated have been of such an immensity that with five years' profits they could have purchased the mines out at their proper capital value. I suggest to the House that this question, from the consumer's standpoint is a very serious one, for the consumers will have inevitably to pay this amount of money. If they are called upon to pay small amounts of this kind, which in the aggregate are great, there will be some righteous indignation from the consuming class of the country. Therefore, as far as the consumers are concerned, we protest emphatically against this. The profits of the mining industry being so great, they will be able to bear a burden of this character. I am afraid the hon. Baronet has not made his case any better by his statement. He has rather irritated the situation and has enabled those opposed to his point of view to put more steam and enthusiasm into their case. He told us the shareholders' difficulty. We know shareholders do get in difficulties sometimes, but as far as the mining shareholders are concerned I do not think the position is quite as bad as he makes out. If they were getting very near to the workhouse then we could consider the advisability of inaugurating a flag day to give them five per cent. When we
look around and see the enormous profits that have been made in the industry, we, from the consumers' point of view, say that the mineowning classes ought to be able to bear this burden, and I appeal to the Government to refuse this demand by these people who are well able to bear it. If we believe the old doctrine of the survival of the fittest to mean those people who are the fittest to bear the heat and burden of the day, then I submit that the consumers are overtaxed at the present day and this burden ought not to fall on the consumers who are the class who cannot bear this tax.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: I am rather sorry that the Government have not withdrawn from this position. I am quite sure that the hon. Baronet in stating his case has really admitted his own position. It is quite evident that the more the coalowners get the more they will demand. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir Auckland Geddes) stated during the last debate in the House on the "One and Twopenny Bill" that if they had carried out the Sankey Report the 1s. 2d. would make £12,800,000 a year. We are going far in advance of that, for now we have practically £26,000,000. In view of the very small amount which now stands before the House I wish the Government would at least replace the word which appeared in the Bill as originally introduced. I do not say it is very much to quibble about. Personally, I feel that the difference is so small that there need be no quarrel whatever, but I feel that the coalowners, receiving the great amount they are receiving, could very well give way on this point. They are much better able to pay than the consumers, who being the poorer, will feel it much harder. The hon. Baronet said the increase in wages was 205 per cent. I do not see where he gets his figures, unless he is taking the aggregate amount of money which was paid in wages and calculated on the same number of emloyees as in 1913. But to-day there is a larger number of employees in the coalmines and the increase is very much less than he has stated and I am surprised at his maintaining his position and say-ing they are official figures. We know from the statements made to us and the Government know from the figures
they have worked out that the hon. Baronet's figures are not accurate. There is one other point I should like to mention. I do not see why there should be this close connection between the coalowners and the Government on such a small matter. It is one of those things in which the Government might well take their courage in their hands and say they are prepared to give the benefit there may be in the matter to the consumers of the coal because it does not affect the miners' wages and will only slightly affect the coalowners' profit. We ought to have a clear demarcation of the coalowners' profits and decide whether we will allow them continually to range upwards. The more they get, the more they will demand. That is quite evident tonight. Still they are not satisfied with this and they are grasping and appealing for the remaining £125,000 which, according to figures given by one of my hon. Friends, amounts to about one-tenth of one per cent. Surely we are not going to continue this debate in order to give the coalowners something that means nothing to them, but may mean something to the consumer.

Mr. CAIRNS: As one who has had a little experience in coal-mining for 40 years I listened with interest to the hon. Baronet. Speaking for the county of Northumberland, I could not understand where he got his 205 per cent. In our county the wages were 7s. 9d. before the War broke out. Including the war wage—Sankey wage—they are about 16s. 5d. now, an increase of about 120 per cent. I do not think it is fair to our men to come here and make such a statement. I happen to hold in my hand a long tabulation of figures from coal companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I want to be quite fair to them. The company I have before me got 40 per cent. in 1917. I will go back to 1914. They had 60 per cent. in 1914. In 1915 they had 23½ per cent.; in 1916, 50 per cent., in 1917, 40 per cent. If there is no shortness of cash in the coal trade, surely the miner pays the price. What about the many explosions that have taken place, with their great loss of life. In 1908, in the Maypole explosion, 75 lives were lost; in 1909, in the Stanley explosion, 165 lives were lost; in 1910, in the Whitehaven explosion, 136 lives were lost; in 1910, in the Hulton explosion, 344 lives were lost; in 1913, in
the Senghenydd explosion, 440 lives were lost. What about the widows and children that are left? If there is any money to spare it ought to go to the institutions for the maintenance of the wives and children. I do not see that there is any need for this money going to the coal owners at all. I see in the daily Press of the country the amount of money that these people leave. I know the history of many of them; sometimes they leave as much as a couple of hundred thousand pounds. What the hon. Baronet says is not correct. I do not know where he gets his figures, and I will put this question to him: Are there any coal miners in this country who are getting anything like 205 per cent.? It is not correct. He made a statement about having to pay Income Tax. Surely the money that the miner gets is subject to these deductions as well? Our workmen in the county of Northumberland subscribed £47,000 to the Newcastle Infirmary, and support the Orthopædic Institution for the men who have been fighting for their country and have come back. The miners have a large heart. I happen to be the President of an institution where we have 200 cottages for the aged people of 60 years and over. It is most ungrateful on the part of the coal owners, and I am glad that the Northumberland coal owners are not here. I think they are bigger than that, and I hope they are not represented by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Cory). I hope the Government will take into consideration the appeal that was made by the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway (Sir Evan Jones) to withdraw their objection to the Amendment. The coal owners do not need this support, and I hope there is a not a Member of the this House who will go to a division but that will support the Labour men. Our men would be very much annoyed at this. I do not like a strike; I hate a strike. I have appealed a great many times to the men not to strike. I wish everyone would follow the example of the miners with regard to work.

Mr. LUNN: This is not a question for the minors. I am not in this House simply to represent the miners. I think that would be a fallacy. Members who are elected to this House should try to serve the community's best interests. When an hon. Member seeks to further what is simply a class interest or an industry's
interest, he is making a mistake. I suppose it has been taken that, because some of us support nationalisation of the mines therefore we are simply interested in the miners. That is not the case. We earnestly believe that it is in the best interests of the community. But here we have a question that does not affect the miner and should not affect the coal-owner, as a coal-owner. It affects the community as a whole, and we, as members of this House, should be looking after the interests of the taxpayer. That should be our duty. That has been shown in what was perhaps the best speech made in the Debate, by the ex-Coal Controller. His speech was a clear argument that the Government should accept the Amendment. As to the profits that have been made by coal-owners, we are not objecting to them, or to the profits that were guaranteed by the Sankey Commission. We are not objecting to the profits that the Government guarantee in their Bill. What we object to is that this is another pledge that has gone on the part of the Government. Last night I was in a meeting at a by-election, and I heard what was quite a new expression to me, that the House of Commons was the greatest pawnshop in the country; that there were more unredeemed pledges there than in any other place. This morning we have seen another pledge unredeemed by the Government. My appeal to them is not in the interests of the miners. I do not want to state the case of the miners, nor do I think it should be the place of the Government to defend either the minors or the coal-owners. In this matter they should have regard to the general interests of the taxpayers, who will have to bear this burden if they do not accept the Amendment that has been moved. They should accept the Amendment in the interests of the mass of the people.

Mr. SWAN: I, like many other of my colleagues, deplore that such an important measure as this should have to be discussed at this time of the morning. It is of such vital importance to the community that it ought to be discussed with clear minds. However, be that as it may, we recognise the importance of the case that we are putting up for the well-being of the community. We are absolutely astounded that the case should be presented from the Treasury Bench entirely on behalf of the coalowners of Britain
instead of the matter being viewed from the aspect of the nation. Instead of adopting a policy which would lead to the peace and tranquillity of the community, we find that the very people who complained about subsidies being given to industries are now seeking to obtain one for themselves. We believe that the coal-owners are adequately compensated and are able to pay for the cost of control. We ask them to effect economy in order that the price of coal should go down, to stimulate collateral industries, and improve the exchange which is militating so much against the interests of this country at the present time. In regard to control, I want nothing to be done to damage its efficiency. I think this will damage the efficiency of coal control, the distribution of trade and the development of mines. In 1917 I and the people in the whole of my area were affected because of the lack of equitable distribution of coal trade. Before coal control came into existence we found that in one village one colliery was working only two or three days a week, while in other cases men were working six days a week. Control altered that and all mines worked regular.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am afraid that is a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. SWAN: My object was to show that the coalowners by equal distribution are so assisted that they are able to pay for coal control instead of passing it on to the consumer. The hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) states that in 1913 the wages per ton of coal raised were 6s. 4d., and in 1919 19a. 6d., that is an advance of 205 per cent. Be that as it may, is he aware that in some parts of the County of Durham in my own Division the basis rate is only 6½d. per ton, and all told, with 107½ per cent. and war wage and Sankey wage added, makes it less than 2s. per ton. Coalowners say that they could not be economically sound and pay their way and at the same time sell coal for £1 a ton if it costs 21s. to produce. We say that if it costs 5s. a ton to produce, where does the other 15s. go? [An HON. MEMBER: "Cory gets it!"] Yes; We believe it goes into the pocket of the hon. Baronet and his friends, and, in a smaller proportion, into the pockets of the consumers. We think this Bill is entirely wrong; that it is violating
the pledge of the Commission; that it does not add to peace nor to output; and that it does not attempt to reduce the high cost of living. Instead of that, it will add to the cost of living and diminish production.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am delighted to have the opportunity of joining in this interesting debate at this interesting hour. The Government asked for it; they are having it and we are enjoying it. This is a very important matter, and they will deserve all they will get. The most important speech made to-night was made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir Evan Jones), the late Coal Controller, who at least knows what he is talking about and understands the question and the importance of this Bill. What the late Coal Controller said to the Government ought to have carried conviction and to have brought about the result that we anticipated would follow. If the Government have hardended their hearts after an appeal from a man who knows the question thoroughly we do not wonder at their resisting any appeal, but we must impress upon them the necessity of recognising the importance of the subject with which we are dealing. It has been said that there is not much in it. True, it does not appear that there is much in it. But there are two sides to that question. If there is not much in it, why do the Government persist in giving it? Why do not they surrender? We cannot solve the problem; we cannot read their mind. Their words have not carried conviction, at any rate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I have heard this speech before. There is a Standing Order against repetition.

Mr. WIGNALL: I only wish, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that Standing Order was in force every day, and every hour and minute of the day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have a colleague who will support me.

Mr. WIGNALL: I really beg your pardon, but I did not catch the last word.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have a colleague who will support me.

Mr. WIGNALL: He is a most loyal one, I am sure. I will try to finish by getting hold of something that has not been said before. It is a most difficult task, but I
am going to try it. It is this: It has been said that there was a distinct opposition to the previous Bill. That was opposed by the coal owners as well as by the men. I think you are paying us, on these benches, a great compliment, and that you have settled a problem that has been agitating the minds of the people for a long time. Did Labour help kill the last Bill, or did it not? There have been many heated discussions upon that point. We claimed that we had killed it, and we were denounced for taking credit to ourselves which we did not deserve. But this morning that question has been solved, because the representative of the Government distinctly and deliberately told us that we killed the Bill.
It was said that the employers were satisfied with the previous Bill. All I can say is that we on these benches received more telegrams from the coal owners asking us to oppose the first Bill than we have ever received on any question that has come before the House. That is something new and, better still, it is absolutely true. We received piles of telegrams, all from coal owners, some of them very closely associated with the hon. Baronet who started this discussion. They were all herded out to oppose this iniquitous proposal of the Government. During the progress of the present Bill not one of us has received a telegram from a coal owner asking to oppose it.

Mr. LAWSON: That is new, too.

Mr. WIGNALL: That is quite new. Some of us have now had telegrams asking us to support the Government. What is the secret of it? They are getting more profit out of it. The Government has satisfied their demands. We are asking them to put the break on and to stop it and to make them give us a little concession and be satisfied with the benefits they have got.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has been in a humorous vein, but I want to be in a serious one on this matter. When the House was discussing the Coal Mines Bill on one occasion we were here at a very late hour, and I remember an hon. Member moving an Amendment that the firemen and, I believe, other men, should be granted a seven-hour day on the same basis as the other miners. The Government
were shocked when this proposal was introduced in the House, and pointed out the amount of money that it would cost in order to give these men a seven-hour day. Now, at this time in the morning, we are listening to the Government [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] or the rich mine-owners appealing to the House for some-thing extra beyond the great amount of profits that they are already obtaining. It is only a very small amount, but we know that in the Articles of Association in connection with some of the mining industries of the country the money simply goes to the grandfather and the son and daughter in very small sums. It would mean a great amount of money in these very small sums. I hope that the Government, at this last moment, will listen to the very earnest appeals that have been made from this side of the House, because they can rely upon it that the minors throughout the country will be reading this debate, especially the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the other speeches that have been delivered here to-day, from the serious and the humorous side. The House can depend upon it that the miners are going to put their backs against the wall when they know that there is always a great fight against them if they put forward a claim for an advance in wages. Yet this House is throwing thousands of pounds away to the very rich mine owners who did exceedingly well previously to the War, and have made enormous profits during the War. I guarantee that not only the mine owners, but practically all other employers in the country, since decontrol has taken place in various industries, have been making bigger profits than they made even previous to the War. Therefore I hope the Government will listen to the appeal that has been made from these benches, and avoid unrest so far as the mining industry is concerned, by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I rise perhaps with different feelings to some of those who have already spoken. I have heard it said that when the Government kept a House beyond the time that it wanted to stay, then the other people kept the Government. Perhaps that enters to some extent into the discussion to-night. I am here not because I like late hours or early hours. I have stayed to this late
hour because to me the question under discussion is one of principle. It is not a question concerning the miners or a question concerning the profits of the coal-owners at bottom. It is a question of taking into consideration what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said—what was the cost of the industry before profits were at all determined. I have always understood that before profits can be paid in an honest business, not only the wages but all the costs to the maximum amount incurred in carrying on the business have to be charged against that business. Therefore I do not agree that this should he paid from any other source than out of the money that has been made in the coal mines. Recently, when discussing this question in the country, we were told by those who were opposed to the Labour benches, that if a certain policy was adopted there might be an arrangement between trade unions and the owners or between the Government and the owners to do something which might be against the consumers' interest, and I was astonished to hear tonight that because the miners were not interested in the matter they were not to bother. That was intended to give those outside the idea that we were likely, in other circumstances, to enter into arrangements with the opposite party to fleece the consumer. If it were possible for the British public to be here to-night, I wonder what they would think of us in this House. I do not think it adds dignity to the House of Commons. I am also perfectly certain that if they weighed the circumstances correctly they would blame the Government for what has taken place. The Government were evidently impressed in their own minds when they first made the suggestion in this matter as to what was the right course to pursue. It seems a

very foolish policy that they should have departed from that in the way they have done. The amount may be small or the amount may be great, but the general public, when taking into consideration the huge profits that have been made and are being made in the coal mining industry, and realising they are asking for £125,000, will come to the conclusion that the coalowners are being allowed to profiteer at the express sanction of the Government without any possibility of getting at the coalowner as the Government have attempted to get at small traders throughout the country. I am not concerned with the miners' issue nor yet with the owners' issue from that point of view, but I think all these charges in connection with the industry should be paid first and then what is left could go as profits to those entitled to got them. I trust that even at this hour the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be accepted, because it will create in the country—and the fact that we waited here so long will advertise it—the impression that we are not so much concerned with the general public, but with the Government and the owners who are entering into a compact to increase already swollen profits by another £125,000 a year. Things are mounting up. Every time they are mounting up it strengthens the vicious circle in which we arc, creating not only discontent amongst the workers, but greater discontent among the people directly suffering from all these increased costs. Therefore, the Government would be well advised in the interests of the country—not only those of the industry—to say that this should not be added to already swollen profits.

Question put, "That the word 'deduction' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 38.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[1.47 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe).


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bridgeman, William Clive
Denison-Pender, John C.


Atkey, A. R.
Bruton, Sir James
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Baird, John Lawrence
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Baldwin, Stanley
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Falcon, Captain Michael


Barnett, Major R. W.
Carr, W. Theodore
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Coats, Sir Stuart
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bell, Lieut.-Co., W C. H. (Devizes)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Forrest, Walter


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Fexcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Courthope, Major George L.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Reid, D. D.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Lorden, John William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lort-Willlams, J.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Gould, James C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lynn, R. J.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Lyon, Laurance
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Matthews, David
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Hinds, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hood, Joseph
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Morison, Thomas Brash
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison, Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Neal, Arthur
Whitla, Sir William


Howard, Major S. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonol Sir Gilbert


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Parker, James
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Perring, William George



Johnson, L. S.
Prescott, Major W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Preston, W. R.
Captain Guest and Lord Edmund


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Talbot


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Lawson, John J.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Spencer, George A.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E. C.


Bromfield, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Mallalieu, F. W.
Thorne, G. H. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Casey, T. W.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Robertson, John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.



Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Griffiths


Holmes, J. Stanley
Sitch, Charles H.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in subsection (1), par. (i), to leave out the words "total standards" and to insert instead thereof the words "average over the five pre-war years."
The object of this Amendment is to make the standard of profits the average over the five pre-war years, instead of the total standards as in this Bill. The total standards at present, we understand, mean something like £26,000,000. The average pre-war years profit amounted to £13,000,000, or, as the late Coal Controller said, £11,500,000 without the ancillary undertakings. We were told also by the right hon. Gentleman and we were told by the Coal Commission that the average profits for the twenty-five or thirty years before the war amounted to something like £9,000,000 per year. I remember during a good part of the time at any rate, that the coalowners were drawing an average of £9,000,000 a year. It did not seem to me that at the time they were doing badly at all upon what they were drawing. I can remember owners who owned small mines and who, out of the profits of the small mines, bought up other mines and out of the doubled profits of these they
continued to add mine after mine, until they were very wealthy men indeed. And, indeed, they not only added mine after mine, but I could mention those who added mansion after mansion and field after field. Some of them even branched out into other counties and bought there land and minerals out of the profits they got out of the mines when they were on an average of £9,000,000 per year. If they could do that on nine millions a year they are not going to do so badly on the pre-war average for five years of 13 millions per year. I think that we ought to remember, in realising that the total standard in this Bill amounts to 26 millions, the value of the words that we heard from the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Col. Wedgwood), "that you are fixing in this Bill the finance of the future of the mining industry." Whether you nationalise or whether you continue the system of control, under whatever system the mining industry is to continue in the future, in this Bill you are fixing the financial standard that is going to stand at least for many years to come. We say that there are other interests as well as the coalowners'
interests. There are the consumers' interests. They have to contribute towards the coalowners, and consequently they pay a high price for their coal. There are also the workers' interests. Some of us are looking forward, some day, to seeing all those big black areas where the whole mass of the mining population have to live, go. The industry ought to bear the weight of the financial cost of re-building those areas. I know what Mr. Justice Sankey's proposals said.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really must pull this discussion in a little bit. It has become very wide. We have had already a Second Heading debate on the first amendment. Now we must really keep to the point of this Amendment, as it arises, namely, the words "total standard" and "the average for the five pre-war years."

Mr. LAWSON: I wish just to make the point that the future of the coal industry depends on the amount which is going to be left in the pool.
2.0 A.M.
If we let this £26,000,000 pass, then of course there is going to be less for reconstruction, building and rearranging the social life of the workers, as well as meeting the position of the consumer. One of the things laid down in this total standard is that the owners are assured of nine-tenths of their profits in certain circumstances; that is, that they are assured of a minimum profit. I can hardly understand owners supporting a minimum profit when they oppose a minimum wage. It seems to me that the position can be accepted sometimes when it suits the owners, but they are in a different position when it comes to dealing with the mass of the people. So we say that if the owners receive the £13,000,000 a year that was agreed upon as the average standard for the five prewar years, we think they will do very well indeed. They did not at all starve on £13,000,000.

Mr. A. PARKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so feeling that we are perfectly entitled to ask the Government to accept it and to give the coalowners their five years' pre-war average. I well remember that when the President of the Board of Trade was introducing the Bill which limited the
profits of the coalmining industry he made some reference to a circular issued by the Mining Association of Great Britain, in which they said that their total average profits were about £25,000,000 a year. He stated that it was a sheer hallucination that they made anything of the kind, and he went on to say that the profits, instead of being £25,000,000, were £32,800,000. It is quite clear that the coal owners will claim as much as they are able to get. We contend that the £26,000,000 in the average is too much, and that in moving our Amendment, giving the five pre-war years' average, we are bringing the coal industry nearer to its actual valuation than it would otherwise be. We think that the £26,000,000 is excessive, that it is giving something to the coalowners to which they are not entitled. We feel that the money thus given in profits to the coalowners could be better spent by the Government in other directions. There are many amenities in the coalmining industry for which money is required. Housing has been mentioned, and there are many other cases where improvements could be effected. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Amendment really goes contrary to what was one of the main provisions of the Bill which passed its Second Reading by a large majority of this House, and entirely upsets the arrangement made. The profit standard which has been fixed in the Bill is the same standard which has boon fixed for all other industries for the calculation of Excess Profits Duty, and the Bill arranges that the excessive profits made by mine owners in regard to exports are to be taken from them. The hon. Members who Moved and Seconded the Amendment, talked as if all the provisions of this Bill were to meet the claims by the owners. This Bill is to carry out two objects. One is to establish the Sankey wage for miners, and the other is to establish a system of profits calculated on the pre-war standard for the owners. From the speeches we have heard from the other side, one would think that the whole Bill was brought in merely in order to give profits to the owners without any consideration to the wages of the men. That is not so. Now we are asked to replace the standard in the Bill by the standard of the average
of the five pre-war years. I did not hear anything about fixing the wages in the Bill on the average of the five prewar years.

Mr. PARKINSON: Does that arise? Wages are essential in order to get profits. Consequently they should not be taken into account.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: And capital also is essential as we have not got nationalisation. Hon. Gentlemen really know perfectly well that until we have nationalisation we have got to pay reasonable profits on capital. What they are asking now is that we should go back to the average of the five prewar years, which the hon. Gentleman, who spoke last, put at £13,000,000. I think £12,800,000 is the exact sum. That after deducting the Income Tax, amounted to £12,000,000. Under the present arrangement the owners would get £22,000,000 pre-war standard, and, if our estimate of the surplus to the end of this financial year is correct, about £1,000,000 more, say £23,000,000.

Mr. PARKINSON: That includes all the bye-product work, too, does it not?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. The £23,000,000 is merely on coal. The £4,000,000 that has been referred to is the interest on capital used in new development. Of course, this is not compared with the five pre-war years, that is new since then.

Mr. LAWSON: Is there any guarantee as to what form that new capital will be put into the industry? Some of us have an idea that it is hardly reliable that new capital will be put in. It is really old capital under a new name.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have verified it, as far as we possibly can, that the new capital on which we are to pay interest is used in development and is new capital. If you take a comparison between wages before the war and wages now, and profits before the war and profits now, you will see that while wages before the war "were £91,000,000 for 1,100,000 people, they are now £225,000,000 for rather over 1,100,000 people. I estimate, therefore, that the wages bill has gone up to 247 compared with an index number of 100 pre-war.

Mr. SPENCER: In what way did you arrive at that figure?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just stated the way I arrived at it—£91,000,000 before the war and £225,000,000 now. Of course the figures are only an estimate.

Mr. LAWSON: What is the proportion of workers now?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are practically the same. I will give the figures now.

Mr. SPENCER: There is a very material point. Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the day's work then against the day's work now? Previous to the war the average week was 4.5 or 5.6, whereas now it is 5.1 or 5.2.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not want to make any unfair comparison. The number of workers before the war was 1,110,884; now it is l,163,000, as far as we can tell, or practically the same number.

Mr. WATERSON: Fifty-three thousand difference.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Take oft 3 or 4 per cent. if you like, or put it the other way. I believe it is calculated that with the figures that have been put forward by the Miners' Association that the increase in wages during the war has been 122 per cent. Put it at that, if you like. That would make 220 against 100 as the index figure; whereas, in the profits that are paid to the owners the figure is 180 to 100. So that in any case, which over way you take it, the rise in wages to meet the cost of living—and I am not complaining of it—is very much higher than the comparative rise in the profits you are going to pay. You have got to remember that a sovereign to-day, whether it is in the hands of the wage-earner or the shareholder, only buys something like one-half of what it did before the war. Therefore, I say that the difference is not double, and is not equivalent to the fall in the value of money. To my mind, the standard fixed in the Bill is a fair one, and I think most hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that it is fair, considering the great advance in the cost of everything to-day.

Major BARNES: I am neither a miner nor a mine-owner, and I intervene just for a few moments on account of the argument
that has been advanced by the Minister in charge. I should like to point out to him what is going to be the effect of that argument, as I understand it, he has advanced the argument that as wages have increased on account of the rise in the cost of living, therefore profits ought to rise in degree for the same reason, and that as a pound is worth less than it was, a larger rate of profits should be paid on the industry on that account. Possibly there is a good deal to be said for that, but I would point out the difficulties that arise from it. The Profiteering Committees in this country have already got a very difficult task, but when they read the argument of the hon. Gentleman, they will find their difficulties very much increased, because the Act passed by the Government lays down that in determining what is fair profit they have to take as their standard what was the reasonable rate earned in the trade before the war. That is entirely destroyed by the argument of the hon. Gentleman in support of the present Bill.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: signified dissent.

Major BARNES: The hon. Gentleman shakos his head, but if he reflects he will sec that that is so, because the proposal in this Bill is to increase the payment to the owners from something like £11,500,000 to £22,000,000, and upon the same amount of capital, because the additional £4,000,000 will be paid on the increased capital. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Gentleman is that a rate of profit, double that paid before the war, is to be paid on account of the fall in the value of the sovereign. That may be a perfectly sound argument, but it is one that will certainly be put forward in every case now by persons brought before profiteering tribunals. It is not the principle embodied in the Profiteering Act. The Government are dealing with this particular industry, but it is not the only industry they have been dealing with. It seems to me essential that where they are dealing with difficult industries they should apply the same principles to them all. They should adopt a course which is consistent, and not allow to one industry terms which they do not give to another one. The closest analogy to the coal industry is the case of the railways. The railways have been taken possession of by the State as the collieries have been taken possession of by the Coal Controller.
In the railways the Government have limited the net aggregate profit of the railways to their net aggregate profits for 1913, and it appears to me that every railway shareholder, on the argument advanced on this Bill by the Minister in charge, has a real grievance against the Government. If you are going to say to people whose money is invested in collieries that they are entitled to twice the rate of profit on account of the fall in the value of the sovereign, I do not see what possible ground you can have for refusing the same concession to the railway shareholders. This argument lays the Government open to a very serious charge, probably the most serious that any Government could be laid open to—that of showing a preference between one class of the community and another. That does not finish the story, because there is another very important—I do not know whether I may call it an industry—another very important form of investment in this country. That is, investment in house property. What has the action of the Government been in regard to that? They have under various Acts limited the owner of house property to the rate of dividend on his investment that he had before the War with some addition of 10 per cent. I do not know whether the 10 per cent. in this Bill is objected to, but, leaving that out of the case, the position here is that the Government have taken one particular industry after having dealt with three—railways, coalmines, and investments in house property—and are giving to one of these three industries terms twice as good as they have allowed to either of the other two. That requires very considerable justification. I do not know whether the Minister in charge can speak again on this matter, but the Minister of Labour, if there is a case to be put up for the Government, will be able to put it up, and I hope there will be some justification for this differential treatment. If it was fair and equitable to limit the railway companies and the owners of house property to their pre-war earnings, it is fair and equitable to do it to the collieries.

Mr. SWAN: We on these benches view with alarm the attitude of the Government towards this question. We believe that this concession is going to handicap the industries of this country in relation to all other industries of the world in the markets of the world by giving this
extra guarantee to the coalowners. We should have some difficulty when we go to our various districts among the mining community to convince them that there is not a differential treatment being given in this House to vested interests compared with the wider interests of the nation. The Government have a duty to perform which goes wider than the interests of the coalowner. It is obvious and will be patent to the whole of the community, that the financial interests are influencing the Government towards the coalowners, who are really able, as the mover of this Amendment said, to conserve their own privileges and welfare without concessions. When it comes to a conflict of profits and of interests, the workers, whether it is the miners or any other class, are apparently entirely void of rights. All that the working class have are duties and responsibilities. The owners have rights, but no duties and responsibilities. There seems to be a strange disposition not to recognise the contradiction of the terms and the meaning of words as applied to owners, coalowners, and miners. We have been doing our utmost to maintain peace amongst our class. We have been trying by negotiations to get some concessions that would create some of these amenities which have been mentioned. This Bill will make the task of the leaders of the Miners' Federation more difficult than ever. The Prime Minister said that in the future we must go on quite different lines to those we have hitherto followed, and that if we are to have an A1 population instead of a C3 population, wealth must be more justly and equitably distributed. We submit that this policy instead of closing the gulf is widening the chasm between the working class and the favoured and privileged class. They are going to make more profits than ever, the difficulty of the workers to get better wages will be greater than it has been in the past. When we have entered into negotiations in the past we have been told that the profits were so low that they could not carry out the reforms we required, whether it was better housing conditions, or better wages, because of the lowness of their profits. We were told in those days that instead of getting 12½ millions it was only a matter of eight or nine millions. We were told by the Commission that the average was £12,800,000. Now this Bill
seeks to give them not only their prewar profits on their best years, but 100 per cent. more than they had in their best years. Can the House expect to maintain peace and equilibrium among the mining community? This is the very antithesis to bringing peace and harmony into the country. It is creating dissension, and we suggest that, while we object to private ownership of the mines, if there is to be this system of private ownership and control in the mines, the profit ought to be limited to what it was in prewar days, and ought not to be inflated When we put indisputable cases for advancement of conditions and wages, they retired on the grounds that their profits would not enable them to make the advance. Liked trained diplomats behind closed doors, they refused to grant our reasonable requests. When discontent was manifested by our people by their attitude, which is supported by the Government this morning, if a strike took place a man of the type of the right hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) was told that he was not looking after the interests of the miners, but was supporting the mineowners when they refused to give these reasonable concessions for which the right hon. Gentleman negotiated. Press, Government, and owners saddled the responsibility upon the leaders of the miners. We think that this policy is wrong, and is not going to lead to the welfare of the nation. We hope the Government will accept the amendment which will help to ease the situation for the time being and, instead of handicapping the mining industry of the country in the markets of the world, will enable us to hold our own and bring about some of these amenities, instead of building up the owners' banking accounts, it will give us those amenities so essential to the miners' life and the welfare of the community.

Mr. SPENCER: The object, as has been stated by my hon Friend who moved this amendment, is to make the five years preceding the War the standard upon which the profits shall be based. That has been persisted by the hon. Gentleman representing the Government, because it is not equitable and it is not fair. It would be very interesting indeed to have expoundede to this House what is the infallible moral standard and criterion
upon which profits are based; whether that is a fixed standard, or whether it changes, according to the cupidity of the man. It would be most interesting indeed, if the hon. Gentleman, in stating the case on behalf of the Government, had laid down that infallible guide. As a matter of fact, he never attempted it. Therefore, one is driven irresistibly to make this inference—that it is almost an impossibility for the hon. Gentleman to lay down what is the exact criterion by which we can judge right and reasonable profits. The profits of the five preceeding years come to something like 9 per cent. in round figures. That is taking good and bad. I think the hon. Gentleman does not remember that.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say anything about percentages at all.

Mr. SPENCER: Let me take what has been given as the capital invested in the industry from the Commission. I think it was about 125 millions. That was not in 1913, but that was at the date when the Commission was sitting. It was less than 135 millions in 1913. If you take 135 as the amount, you will find that 13½ millions is approximately 10 per cent. of that. Six per cent. goes towards the cost and 3 per cent. towards depreciation, although some of the coalowners still say that 3 per cent. is no good towards depreciation, because in the case of a mine it is a wasting asset. I want to give an instance of a mine in the town to which I belong which has been exhausted afted 30 years There may have been one particular seam exhausted, but the plant is still there; it only means going a little further down and digging another seam and starting again. If a company can draw 9 per cent., make provision for the wear and tear, and pay 6 per cent. on the whole of the industry and 3 per cent. for depreciation, it is not a very bad return. I submit that that was the state of the industry in 1913. It has been said more than once, in this House, that if the labourer doubles his earnings, then the capitalist has a perfect right to double his interest and returns. That is not a very good argument to bring forward to encourage the labourer to increase production, because it means that, so far as increased production is concerned, the more that Labour produces, relatively speaking, the less it makes. You have all the more for the capitalist to appropriate. As to the
arguments in relationship to the ethics of capital, I fail to see that any cogent argument has been advanced for the increased dividend upon the capital invested in the industry. The five years preceding the War were exceptional years. I think that the whole of the mining fraternity will admit that those five years were exceptional. Therefore, it would seem to show that it would have been well within the region of ethics to have based the interests of the mines of something in the region of those years. One has been compelled to notice how very ready the Government has been to meet the interests of Capital rather than of Labour [HON. MEMBER: "No,"] May I give one ilustration? It is not so long ago since we had a huge railway strike. At that particular time the Government spent enormous sums of money for the purpose of putting forward the Government side of the case, and to discredit the railwaymen. That strike had no sooner ended and the labourers returned than there was a bankers' strike. The weekly edition of the "Manchester Guardian" stated in October last that the event of the week had been the holding up of the money by the bankers and the capitalists at the moment the Government required it most, when Treasury balances were falling due. But nobody heard a word about that. The Government did not advertise and say that the bankers were resorting to direct action. The bankers sat still, held their money tight, and the Government came forward willingly and gave another 1 per cent. to the bankers for the money they had lent. That is an illustration of how ready the Government have been to accept the slightest demands of the capitalist interests in this House. Here is another instance of that same thing. Now the hon. Gentleman who defended these proposals on behalf of the Government said that the wages of the miners in pre-war days were £91,000,000, but now they were £225,000,000. I tried to elicit from him the number of days that were worked per miner in 1913, but he did not attempt to deal with that. It is well known to us that in 1913 part of the coal-pits would be more than half idle in the summer. If he is going to take 1913 for the purpose of comparison, he must take into consideration the number of days actually worked by the men at that time. In 1918, or since 1914 right the way along,
there has been unlimited work for everybody. There has been nothing like short time, and therefore it is not a fair comparison to take a year in which the men have been subject to enforced idleness and compare that with the years that the men have been able to work the whole of the time. Therefore, I want to submit that the comparison is not a fair comparison, and I wish to draw the inference that that does not fairly represent the increase in the miners' wages.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What is it?

Mr. SPENCER: If he could take the exact time worked in 1913 and the same in 1919, and make allowance for the extra time, that would represent the increase which the miner has received. But the hon. Gentleman never attempted to do any such thing.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When my hon. Friend challenged my comparison I said that I would take his own, which was 122 per cent. of the increase since the war. I did take that as the basis of my argument.

Mr. SPENCER: Very well. Even if you take that, what I want to come to is this. Is it a fair canon that labour is going to increase its wages if capital must inevitably follow along the same lines? If that is a doctrine propagated by this House as a definite doctrine to follow, it is not much encouragement for labour to attempt to increase output, because it only means that labour will be relatively worse off in the last thing than in the first thing, I want to come for a moment to that £4,000,000, because that is a very important point. That is supposed to represent new capital coming into the industry since 1913. It would be interesting to know where that capital came from, and it would be still more interesting to know to what extent it is being used, whether it is lying idle, or whether it has been used productively. If that £4,000,000 has been used for the expropriation of certain mineral rights which had to be brought out again if minerals are nationalised then it should not bear interest now. These are the reasons why we object to this new proposal. It has been stated that we on this side are responsible for the withdrawal of the first Bill which was supposed to confine itself to one and two-pence.
It never did. The real reason why we objected to that Bill was because it made no provision for the continuation of the Coal Controller's Department, and everyone here knows that it would have been most disastrous to withdraw some form of control at the present time.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member should confine his arguments to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. SPENCER: I am only giving that as a reason why we are opposed to this provision. So far as this side of the House is concerned we shall go into the Lobby thinking that we are casting our votes in the interests of those least able to bear this additional burden.

Mr. HOLMES: Listening to the arguments put forward, I quite understand that our Labour friends are desirous of reducing the amount which the coal owners shall receive from the amount as set out in the Bill. But I am not at all sure, from my knowledge of the finance of the coal industry, that they are going to achieve their object by this Amendment. The House will be aware that for the purpose of arriving at the profit standard a firm or company is entitled to take the best two out of three years or the best four out of six pre-war years, I think it is quite probable that the average for the five pre-war years may come to almost as much in amount as the standard in this Bill. The profit which a colliery shows in its profit and loss account is not the profit shown in arriving at its standard profit. A colliery company may deduct all sorts of items for depreciation which the directors may thing fit to represent, and may perhaps deduct a levy to the Coalowners' Fund, which is not allowed for Income Tax. These may be added on to show the profit standard. If the Amendment were carried and we inserted the average for the five prewar years, the profits for these five years would be increased by such amounts as in the ordinary way would be disallowed for Income Tax, and in the result there would be very little in it. The weak point about the Amendment is this—they talk about the average of the five prewar years, but they make no provision in this Amendment or any subsequent Amendment for collieries that have not got five pre-war years. Take the Don-caster district. There are many collieries
that have not five pre-war years. You make no provision for these. The same thing occurs in South Wales, and I could name cases all over the country. There is no provision in this Amendment to give them any standard at all. That would be most inequitable, and would lead to disastrous effects.

Mr. SPENCER: Does the hon. Member know of any colliery working now that was not working before the War?

Mr. HOLMES: Yes. I am sure that the House will not ask me to name the collieries individually, but I know companies for which I act professionally, the director of one of which I saw to-day in connection with this Bill. Their first year ended in Sept., 1916. And there are many others. What I would suggest is that hon. Members, having made their protest with regard to this matter, should now let it go without going to a division, because, as a matter of fact, they may do far more harm than good in pressing this matter.

Mr. WATERSON: I noticed that the representative of the Government who dealt with this matter said that we were bound by the arrangement that had been made. And their speaker referred to this House as a place of unredeemed pledges. I am glad that the Ministry is prepared to carry out the arrangement it made, but I would suggest that if it is prepared to carry out the arrangement with the coal owners it should also carry out the bargain come to so far as the Sankey Commission is concerned.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say anything about any arrangement with the coal owners. I said this principle was the principle on which the excess profits were levied in every industry.

Mr. WATERSON: I understand that the Minister concerned with them did not want to upset the arrangement that had been made. If I have misunderstood the situation I am prepared, naturally, to withdraw that observation. I have been looking at some of the figures as far as the coal owners' profits are concerned, and we have had many statements made to-night as to the great increases that have been given to the miners. On examination I find it is not quite so bad as has been made out. For the periods between 1909 and 1913 the profits of the
coal owners were 11½d. per ton but their profits, up to September, 1918, from that period, were 3s. 6½d. per ton, an increase of two hundred and seventy per cent. With regard to the question of an arrangement which the Minister says was not made, I was going to suggest that they might put the Sankey Report into operation, seeing that that was the arrangement come to between the Government and the miners that they would be prepared to accept it. I had hoped the Government would have accepted an amendment of this kind. I view the position from the consumers' standpoint, because, after all, the responsibility for finding the money will fall upon the consumers of this country, 85 per cent. of whom are ordinary working people, and we know perfectly well from past experience that, however much profit is decided upon, it will always fall upon the consumer. The wages that the coal owners have to find for the men they employ have to be carried on the shoulders of the consumers. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, as it is in the interests not only of the miners but of the consumers as a whole.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I think the coal owners ought to be satisfied with the five years' pre-war profits. They are the best five years they ever saw—five years when there was no control of the industry. They have been crying out a lot against control and we are agreeing that they should take the best five years they can get without any control at all, I do not know why the Government should be so considerate and tender towards the coal owners. They were not the most patriotic men in the world when the war was on. Some of us were working up and down the collieries then, and we know something of what was done during the war. I know a colliery that could never get covered in before the war, but they decided they might just as well cover it in, and so have loss trouble with the men, as pay excess profits. I know of another colliery where a wall seven or eight feet high and hundreds of yards round was built during the war. They thought they might just as well build the wall and improve the property as pay excess profits. They talk of now developments taking place. I daresay there has been little development during the last few months, since the agitation for nationalisation has been so
prominent, and I understand that very well; but there was great development while the War was going on. I know of plenty of places where they have driven through faults, and found new coal, and then left it there to be gone back to at some time when control was off, and they could get all the profits it was possible to make. I know of another place where, notwithstanding the fact that coal was needed so badly, and that there was only a small number of men to get the coal because of the number who had left the collieries and joined the Army, they stopped a seam five feet thick and worked one of only three feet.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment before the House. The hon. Member has not directed any observations yet to the Amendment, he is speaking on mining generally.

Mr. EDWARDS: I think I was arguing to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and proving that the colliery owners did not deserve the consideration that the Government proposals give them. I do not know that that was very far from the point. However, I am not going on that line any further; the things I have mentioned are perfectly true. The Government ought to pay more attention to the needs of the community, but that aspect is ignored entirely, and the mineowners seem to be much more important to the Government than the great consuming public of the country. I think we ought to take the pre-war profits as the profits of the coalowners such as obtains in every other industry. I believe we made a mistake in opposing the other Bill. We did the coalowners a good deal of service, for which, I daresay, we have been thanked many times.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I view with alarm the proposal of the Government to give to the coalowners the extra profits for which they are asking. The day may come—we are hoping it will—when we shall go back to normal conditions. I view with alarm the effect of going back, for, having met the coalowners once, I can see that this will be brought up against us in the regulation of our wage. I remember in my very young days, when I first met the coalowners on this very question of profits and wages,
we were told that before any wages were to be obtained that their profits must be secured. In the past the coalowners have done very well indeed. I remember in 1901 that five or six collieries that originally belonged to one owner changed hands and passed into the control of a limited liability company. It is well known that in less than eighteen months the capital sum of £1,000,000 paid to selling owner was handed to him. That shows that the profits derived by the coalowners in the past have been more than ample. The increase proposed by the Government in this Bill is absolutely unfair, not only to the wage earner who is called upon to produce the coal, but it is still more unfair to the people who are called upon to pay.
3.0 A.M.
We, on this side of the House, want to keep down, as far as possible, the cost of living; but if other people are going to filch from the general public in the way that the coalowners have or are asking that they should be allowed to do—and the Government have helped them and backed them up—I have grave fears for this country in the years to come. Let us do the best for the people that cannot help themselves. This fight is not really between miner and owner. It is not our question. The real question is that of the people in this country who cannot afford to pay. I want to help these people. If you go to any workers' homes—despite all that has been said about high wages—and ask them whether they would not return to the conditions prior to 1914 than have the present conditions, they will say, "Let us get back to the cost of living and the wages we earned prior to the war." I urge the Government to stand between the parties here and see that the consumer and the citizens of this country have the first call on their attention. I trust that the Government will agree to the Amendment. It may save mountains of difficulties in the years to come between the miner and mineowner. It may save trouble if we can come to a fairer arrangement. We miners believe that the Government are giving the coalowners more than that to which they are entitled. Let them make sacrifices as we have made sacrifices.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary, in defending
this payment to the coalowners, was very hard put to it to find an argument for defence when he used the wages paid to the miners. If the coalowners had been as patriotic as the miners with regard to this question of profits, wages and prices, the coal trade and the country would have been in a position entirely different from what it is to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary said that as we had not yet been nationalised capital was required. I do not think anyone in favour of the nationalisation of the mining industry in their wildest dreams or statements ever thought about working the coal mines without capital. They suggested doing without the capitalist, not without the capital. When we introduce the miners' wages in arguing the question it is only fair to deal with the past history of the coal trade as far as wages and prices are concerned. We do not deny that the miners have now a much higher wage if measured in shillings than they had previously to the War. As a matter of fact you do not calculate a man's wages by the number of shillings he gets at the end of the week, but the number of commodities he can buy, and in that respect the miner is in a worse position to-day than he is in 1914. But I want to follow the Parliamentary Secretary in his argument upon the question of wages. There is not a coalfield in Great Britain, but has a history behind it with regard to the relationship between wages and prices. In the mining district I come from we have an arrangement established and carried on for over 20 years, but the miners in order that advantage might not be taken of the country, and that they might not gain anything because of the war, abandoned wages following prices. If they had not done so, the wages for the miners in the Scottish districts would be shillings per day higher than they are at the present time. We must remember that in the coal mining industry the profits and wages have to be taken. No matter how much anyone may argue in this House the hard fact remains that the coalowners' profits were increased because of the war, challenge them to prove that there is any more capital in the industry in 1920 than there was in 1914. We know the mining industry. There is not a coalfield in Britain but we know it, and when they speak about extra capital in the mining industry we should like them to prove it to this House. When they had an opportunity
of proving that extra capital was put into the industry they were unable to do so. We should like to know where it is. Apart from that question the hard fact remains. Whatever apologies may be made by the Parliamentary Secretary for the extra money given to the coalowners profits have gone up from nine to thirteen and to twenty-six millions. We are very anxious about this question. We are sometimes blamed for creating unrest in the mining industry. Of course, I know how the vote will go. People who have the majority behind them in this House can afford to sneer at the arguments of a minority fighting not for themselves, but for justice to the ordinary citizen. The time may come when the boot may be on the other foot, and I hope those of us who are struggling like hell against the exploitation of the common citizen will not sneer at the individuals who are endeavouring to save the nation from being robbed as they are at this time. What the Government has got to explain to the general public is that nine millions, thirteen millions and twenty-six millions had gone to the coalowners of this country, and the coalowners have not put an extra penny into the trade. Some of the managing directors, chairmen and others are drawing salaries from eighteen or nineteen different companies. A manager said to me once, "They do nothing but interfere, to the general detriment of the industry." I would like them to give some reason apart from miners' wages. The miners' wages are swallowed up in the increased cost of living. The coalowners' profits are not. When the miner has abandoned shillings per day in the interests of the nation, it comes very badly from the coalowners' representatives that they should plead with the miners to let this go. We know how the vote will go, but we hope that the people in the country will take up the question and put an end to the exploitation that is taking place.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was hopeful that at this late hour we should have had some indication from the Minister of Labour as to what the Government were going to say to the reasonable Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend. However, it seems that the Minister of Labour is quite as adverse to getting up and giving the small concession for which we ask as is his friend, the hon Baronet,
the Member for the St. Ives Division (Sir C. Cory), to get up and say anything against the practice of the claim that we are putting forward in this Amendment. On a former Amendment the hon. Baronet tried to show to the House that the miners had got a far greater advantage out of the coal trade of the country in recent years than the coal owners had.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That was on a previous Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak on a previous Amendment, I am afraid that we should be travelling very widely from the Amendment before the House.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention of trying to reply to the speeches made on a former Amendment. I was simply referring, very slightly, to the speech which the hon. Baronet, the Member for the St. Ives Division made. If I were to reply to his Amendments I fear I should require more time than I should be inclined to take at this early hour of the morning. The only reference I wanted to make to his speech was to show that—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I really must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot, on this Amendment, reply to speeches made on a previous Amendment that has been disposed of by the House.

Mr. ADAMSON: Very well, I will not pursue further his reference to miners' wages. All I now want to do is to try, and show that miners' increased wages are not at all to be compared with the increased profits that the coal owners have had during these five years referred to by the hon. Baronet. During 1909 to 1913 the profits of the coal owners panned out at something like 11½d. per ton. In 1918 the profits had risen to 3s. 6½d. per ton.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I heard that on a previous Amendment.

Mr. ADAMSON: That shows that, comparing the profits—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order!

Mr. ADAMSON: I am subject to the ruling of the chair. That shows that the increases in their profits were higher than the increase which has taken place in the miners' wages. The Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend is designed
to bring those profits back to a more reasonable figure. My hon. Friends want to make the five pre-war years the standard. During those five years the coal owners of the country had made an average profit of at least £13,000,000. That was a higher average than the previous 21 years gave them; they only showed an average of £9,000,000.

Sir R. HORNE: That was developing industry.

Mr. ADAMSON: It was developing industry, but surely there is a considerable amount of room for development between the figure of £9,000,000 and the figure of £13,000,000. I think that the Amendment deserves more sympathetic consideration at the hands of the Government than we have got at present. As a matter of fact we have only had a very brief speech from one of the gentlemen in charge of the Bill, and I am very much surprised to find that the Minister of Labour, who is in charge here, has nothing to say sympathetically towards the Amendment.

Mr. CAIRNS: I want to know from whence the increased profits are due. During the war no new shafts were allowed to be sunk. No new water logs were put down, there were no new shafts, no new drifts, so it cannot be due to the extension of the work. I should like to ask where the increase has come from? What is the cause of it? I want to say that the profits of the coalowners that were about £9,000,000 have gone up to £26,000,000. That is equal to about 188 per cent. increase. The miners' wages have gone up from £91,000,000 in the same period to £l25,000,000. I did not understand what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said. That rise in the miners' wages is equal to 147 per cent. The profits of the coalowners have gone up to 188 per cent.; but that is not all. I know some collieries that were opened very many years ago. Those shafts are still going. That is not all the profits that the coalowner gets. We have the by-products of the works—benzol and all kinds of things. I cannot say exactly how much that will mean, but it will mean a very large sum of money throughout the country. Then collieries have whole shifts. There must be some profit due from them as well. I hope there is no necessity to give the coalowners £26,000,000 when the average is about £12,800,000. I hope, therefore, that the
Amendment will be accepted by the Government,

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Those of us who sit on these benches have no responsibility for the debate that is going on at very great length. After all, we did not choose the time when this Bill should be considered by the House. That is the business and privilege of the Government. But it would be most regrettable that simply because the Government have chosen the early hours of the morning to discuss this important measure it should go through without ample discussion and consideration of its various clauses. It may be argued that this matter was considered in Committee, but a number of us had no opportunity of being on the Committee, and we know nothing of the arguments that have been put forward to justify the various clauses. Because of that, if for no other reason, we are entitled now to ask for explanations and justification of the clauses which are contained in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing a definite Amendment, and the hon. Member must please confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. SMITH: I submit to your ruling, Sir, and perhaps I should have put it that instead of asking for a justification of the clauses I should have asked that some reason should have been given to the House why the Government have not accepted the Amendment which has been moved to this particular clause. After all, nothing has been said by the representative of the Government to disturb the basis upon which this Amendment rests, and one would have thought that if the Government have not given any substantial reason why this Amendment should not be carried at least some representative of the coalowners in this House should have given an explanation or a reason why the House should not be asked to support the Amendment that had been moved. On previous Amendments we had some very interesting figures given to us in regard to the proposals then being discussed. Possibly if we had some more speeches from the representatives of the coalowners in regard to this matter we should find perhaps even more justification for our Amendment than the arguments that have been submitted from these benches.
Whether that is so or not this matter is of very considerable importance to the country generally at the present moment. After all the nation has been warned very severely at times against turning its mind towards a course of procedure that has been termed unconstitutional. It seems to me that if the nation is to be called upon to preserve constitutional procedure in regard to the reforms and changes that are to take place, at least this House in the measures that come before us, ought to give every justification for the proposals that it makes and the measures which it carries. At the present time when there is so much unrest in the country the House ought to try to deal with the matter by reducing the cost of living.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. SMITH: I would suggest that when we are discussing a measure of this far-reaching character we should be able to deal with cognate matters.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now on the Report stage of the Bill, and on that stage it is not the practice to indulge in a general discussion of the principles of a Bill. We must consider the particular Amendment before the House.

Mr. SMITH: I will endeavour not to trespass in the further observations I have to make, although it is rather difficult for one who has not had a long experience of the procedure of the House not to follow hon. Gentlemen opposite in the example they set us. The point I wish to emphasise is that it is very undesirable that this House should set up a standard of profits in any industry which cannot be justified. The Amendment that has been proposed is that the five years previous to the War should be taken as a standard upon which the profits of the industry should rest in future. I have before me a report of a previous Debate in this House and I find that these profits during those five years were very exceptional in amount as compared with previous years. If that is so, surely those five exceptional years ought to be a reasonable basis upon which the industry should be conducted in future. If other industries in the country are going to depart from a basis of a period of years
during which trading was fairly prosperous and run their business on lines that represent very much higher profits, we are going to intensify the difficulties of the nation at the present moment and lead to serious industrial unrest in the future. The standard proposed in the amendment is one entirely in the interests of the nation. If we are to permit high profits we are going to intensify the difficulties of the people as a whole, and more especially that section of the community continually referred to in this House as having fixed incomes with no opportunity of adjusting them like other sections of the people. From the widest standpoint of national policy I think this amendment can be justified, and it is most regrettable that the Government have chosen this time of the morning to have this Bill debated. I very much regret that the Government has taken up this attitude. After all, some of us who wish the minds of the people generally to turn in the direction of constitutional action will find our task considerably added to when we urge our policy on those with whom we come into contact. Especially will that be so if the general traditions and procedure of this House are departed from by the Government in legislation of this description, which is far reaching in its character, and most important so far as its bearing on the lives of the people is concerned. The Government are unwise, from the point of view of public policy, for they are going to make the task of those who have to deal with the extreme section of the community most difficult. From that standpoint there is every justification for the adoption of this Amendment. It will inflict no hardship upon the mine owners, as such, because although there has been an attempt to draw a comparison between the mine owner and the miner from the point of view of the change in their respective earnings, there is really no comparison between them. The miner is a man living at the subsistence level, and if he does not get an advance in his earnings corresponding to the increase in the cost of living he becomes inefficient in his work and a danger. The owners are people with large accumulations of wealth and with surpluses, and there is no comparison between people who have a substantial surplus over and beyond the cost of living and those poeple whose income is down to the subsistence
level. It is not a fair comparison to use the argument as to the increase in wages as a justification for a similar increase taking place in profits, nor can it be justified on the ground of public policy. There is a very wide difference between the two things, and if we allowed this to be used as a precedent from which all other traders might be permitted to adopt the same attitude, we should be agreeing to a principle that would be disastrous to the country.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I feel it necessary at this hour of the morning, even at the risk of detaining the House for a few minutes, to ask the Government, who are bringing this Bill on at such an unearthly hour, at least to give some reply to the arguments put forward from these benches. Since eleven o'clock last evening we have had fully a score of speeches delivered from the Labour benches, addressed to benches from whom no response has come. The Government benches this morning might be described as benches of silence.

Mr. HAYDAY: And sleep.

Mr. MACLEAN: And sleep. They are occupied by right hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Members who are taking no part in the discussion, who are replying to none of the arguments put forward and are putting up no case against that advanced by the miners' representatives. The only statement from the benches opposite came from the Parliamentary Secretary, who made a speech in justification of the Government's opposition to this Amendment on the ground that the miners' wages had been increased to meet the increased cost of living, and that, therefore, the only just thing to do was to increase the profits of the mineowners and the shareholders generally to meet the corresponding increase so far as they were concerned. The hon. Gentleman gave us some figures, which related, not merely to the money, but to the miners amongst whom the increased wages had been distributed. But he gave us no figures as to the number of shareholders in the various mining concerns in the country; the amount of and the value of their holdings in the mines in which they had invested their money, nor the amount which each would receive from this particular gift which is being given to them by the Government in this Bill. It would be a rather interesting table
to submit to us—a table giving the actual profits realised by the respective shareholders in these different colliery companies. I am convinced that were such a table submitted to the House by any of the Government speakers, and if these figures were published throughout the country, there would be such an outcry on the part of the consumer that the Government, which is remaining silent and is trusting to wearing down hon. Members on this side of the House, would not go forward with the Bill. After the reports of this Debate are published I am convinced the people of this country would not have this Bill, which makes a large gift of money. That is all one can call it. You cannot really call it earnings on capital which, we are told, is the object of the Government in giving them this money, but it is restoring to them the value of the earnings of the money they have invested. That is not just and sound. The men who have produced the wealth, the colliers themselves, are entitled to the increased wages they have received, because they have to purchase the subsistence which enables them to remain efficient to continue to produce the coal which earns the profits of the mine-owners. The mineowners have nothing to do but to sit by, like the Government are doing to-night, while the miners produce the coal which, on its sale, realises the profit which the mineowners are going to pocket. That is what this Bill actually does—it takes from the consumer and gives to the mineowners a sum of money which we hold they are not entitled to receive. Even upon the basis of pre-war earnings, in many instances companies had their capital increased by 50 per cent. by "water." Dividends that were being paid on large blocks of their capital were dividends paid on capital that had never been subscribed to these companies—bonus shares that had been distributed in order to hide the rate of profit earned by the companies. On many occasions companies which had watered their capital were in the main the companies which were the most difficult to advance in order to get anything like a subsistence wage for the miners who had to go down into the pits which these companies owned. In spite of those facts, which no Government speaker can refute, facts of the old bad days of pre-War times, you have the Government coming forward to perpetuate that system by the
gift they intend to make to-night to colliery owners throughout the country. We are told that capital is necessary, that capital requires to have this increased profit.
Let me submit that the workers them selves in the colliery, not merely producing the coal, the value of which gives to them in wages the money that the colliery owners are grudging the miners in payment—but they also produce that part which the mine owners distribute and set aside as depreciation and reserve and they also produce that part which goes as profit. They actually re-produce the capital every 10 years which the colliery owners claim as theirs. They reproduce the value of that capital set aside in depreciation to keep it in working order, the reserve funds which are established in order to give it back at the end of a few years in bonus shares to the shareholders of the Companies. The miners produce those things and yet they are described by hon. Members in this House, by newspapers outside the House, as men who are demanding too much. Hon. Members opposite seem to agree. Demanding too much! Are we demanding as much as the colliery owners are squeezing out of the Government? If we are getting as much, I do not know the miner who lives in a house similar to that occupied by a colliery owner. The condition of life in which the individual lives is to me the soundest and surest way of judging whether he is making a good thing or a bad thing out of the industry in which he is employed and gets his living. The miner is the producer of these things. Is he receiving his just share of them? Is the consumer being treated in a proper manner? He is not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Members opposite agree. It is the first exclamation of sympathy I have heard from those benches to-night. Evidently the evening's discussion has had some effect when it has softened the flinty hearts of the Government supporters. I hope that by the time I finish speaking I shall have softened a few more and enable us to carry this Amendment if the Government persists in opposing us in the Lobby. I appeal to the House and to the Government to consider the matter. Let us know exactly where we are. Let the country know where it is. Let us understand how the coal industry
stands. The public in the country are completely befogged by the various statements that have been circulated. The miners, the Government, the colliery owners are all circulating various statements, all showing various sets of figures, all conflicting one with the other, befogging and bemusing the minds of the people outside, including the consumer, who has to pay the price, until he does not know where he can find the truth concerning the coal industry. The Government and the coal owners have evidently made a deal. Until last week the whole coal industry was seething with discontent. Resolutions have been passed, letters have been sent out, and advertisements paid for by various organisations hiding themselves behind smoke screens, all denouncing the miners because the miner had taken up a very determined attitude in regard to his particular trade. The other trade unionists in the country, feeling that the country ought not to be placed in any jeopardy, but that industry in this country ought to have an opportunity of settling down and being conducted on good, thorough lines, decided that, instead of carrying on the agitation for the particular demand of the miners and trade unionists as reflected in the various resolutions passed by various trade unions congresses, and instead of adopting a general strike and taking direct action they would endeavour to obtain their ends and carry out their ideals by the propagation of those ideals, by the conversion of the public mind to their opinions, to their political channels, by means of Parliament, and that they would, by political ends, gain their desire. What is the House doing this morning? The House is actually rejecting Amendments put forward with the object of securing that these ends should be achieved by political means. The defeat of these resolutions of the Trade Union Congress is driving from the floor of this House the further discussion of the principles contained in this Bill, to be discussed in the miners' lodges, at the pit heads, with the result that you are likely to have a strike on the part of the miners when next they desire their ends rather than come back to seek to have them decided by Parliament. You are thrusting the whole question of industry on the workers outside.
You are trying to prove to them that their desires and demands meet with little or no acceptance from the Government of this country; that there is little use for them coming into the House of Commons or sending up to their representatives Amendments to be put before the Government for the Government defeats them all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Commons!"] The Government defeats the objects of the workers on all occasions. As a consequence you are going to have greater power in the hands of the trade unions of the country, so that, when they desire something by peaceful means, without all the consequent dislocation of industry, you are going to have those people turning back upon themselves, dislocating the whole industry by coming out on strike. As a natural result, you are going to have probably special constables drafted into districts, it may be even the military in order to quell what will be considered disturbances in the part of the striking world. I appeal to the Government and to hon. Members to accept the Amendment. I am appealing to Members of the Government who have charge of the Bill; not to the Members of the House who have received previous instructions from the Whips. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment and will include it in the Bill, and will give us, at least, some opportunity of justifying the uses and the means of Parliament and of political action to the workers, who are in the industries outside, in the country. I do not know why the Government should be so set upon refusing to reply to the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House. The Deputy-Speaker and others who have occupied the Chair have pulled up hon. Members once or twice for repetitions. It evidently requires repetition to convert some people, and, while it may be a breach of the Standing Orders of the House, there is this much at least to be said. The points that we made and the arguments we advanced have never been replied to by the Government, and it was necessary for the Labour Members to repeat those arguments to endeavour to draw the Government representatives into making some reply. I hope and trust that at this
hour of the morning the Government is going to wake up.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is now repeating himself.

Mr. MACLEAN: I meant it in the figurative sense, not in the literal sense, because I recognise that in this House there are fewer Members more wide awake than those on the Government Bench. I appeal to thorn, at least, to give us some indication of their intentions. They have heard for three hours discussion on this Amendment. We have only had one speech from the Government Bench. I trust that this time we shall have something said. We do not want to know the intentions of people who are going blindly into the Lobby—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating himself again. I must now warn him.

Mr. MACLEAN: I merely want to appeal to the Members of the Government who have charge of this Bill to let us know their intention, and have some statement on the arguments advanced from this side of the House, as to what they intend to do with the Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY: I intervene in the De bate to draw attention to a very serious aspect associated with the Government proposes and the Amendment now before the House. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson) that the standard profits for the five years immediately preceding the War were much greater than the average for the previous twenty-one years. That being so, it cannot be said that to accept the Amendment proposed from these Benches would in any way inflict hardship upon any individuals or any community of individuals associated with the coal mining industry. This is the point to which I want to call the attention of the House. All the recent particulars we have had continue to call for greater economy, and here we find the Government by this Bill, jointly arranged, I understand, with the coal owners, that the differences in the amounts suggested in the Amendment that would be looked upon as fair profits, and the amount suggested in the Bill, mean rather more than 1s. per ton on coal. If that be so, let us
trace the effects generally up on industry. I speak now, taking the second process, from that of coal to that of pig-iron manufacture. It is known that you would have to take at least three tons of coal as part of the component material that goes to manufacture a ton of pig-iron. So it means that the difference between the Amendment and the proposals of the Government is at least 3s. per ton. Coke always goes to any price in sympathy with the price of coal. That means that there will be a 4s. per ton increase on the price of the manufacture of pig-iron. If you trace that you will find all those processes starting from the proposals of the Government. Trace that into the shipbuilding yards and you will find there the ever-increasing charge upon the production of the commodities so closely associated with this suggested Act of the Government, that eventually you will find it handicapping industry because industry in turn passes the charge on to the commodities which they manufacture. In fact, if my argument is developed, it will be seen that that is why the housewife has to pay so heavily for such domestic utensils as the frying-pan as compared with the pre-War prices. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about production?"] When you speak about production you are dealing with a subject which is not before the House, or I should he ruled out of Order were I to take the suggestion of the hon. Member and commence to talk about production. It is the result of production that the quarrel is over at the moment; the profits that are got from production. The Government suggest that a present should be made to those who have investments in colliery companies.
4.0 A.M.
We are trying to demonstrate to the Government that their proposals and ours mean ail this difference from the basis. Further, what will the small consumer say if it is known that the Government by their action suggest placing the equivalent of another one shilling a ton on coal 2 What would the ordinary householder, where there is sickness in the house and where fires have to le kept burning continually, say if it was known that an additional burden was being placed upon him? I suggest that the proposals emanating from these benches are reasonable and just, and
that they would inflict no hardship, because the standard suggested by the amendment would be greater than the average of anything that happened for 21 years before. It cannot be said that the men who are producing the coal are living at anything like the pre-war standard. Notwithstanding the increase in wages their standard of living is lower than it was in 1914. Does the standard of living in any way affect the lives of those who will be advantaged out of the profits that accrue from industry?

Major MORGAN: Reluctant as I am to intervene in this Debate, I desire to support the Amendment, which I think is very reasonable, and I am astonished to find that the Goverment are making no reply to the modest request made from the benches on this side that the average of the five pre-war years should be taken on this question. I cannot make a stronger appeal than has been made by the hon. Member for Wellingboro., that we are surely entitled to got some explanation from the Government as to

why this preferential treatment is to be given to the colliery owners on this matter of profits. It has already been stated that the proportion of pre-war profits was considered fair. The hon. Member for Wellingboro' and several other hon. Members on this side have pointed out—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot have a repetition of what other hon. Members have pointed out.

Major MORGAN: May we not be afforded some explanation from the Government? Our constituents are complaining. Only last Monday I was told in my own constituency that the Labour Members in the House of Commons did nothing at all; they were said to be like tame eats. Will not the Government give us some excuse, however small, that will justify our existence.

Question put, "That the words 'total standards' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes. 28.

Division No. 66.]
AYES.
[4.8 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Eyres Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morison, Thomas Brash


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Falcon, Captain Michael
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murchison, C. K.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Forrest, Walter
Neal, Arthur


Atkey, A. R.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baird, John Lawrence
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Parker, James


Baldwin, Stanley
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Preston, W. R.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnston, Major Harry
Glyn, Major Ralph
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bell, Lieut Col. W C. H. (Devizes)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Roundell. Colonel R. F.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gould, James C.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bigland, Alfred
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Stanier, Captain Sir Seville


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Hon. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Bridgeman, William Clive
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Bruton, Sir James
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Sturrock, J. Leng


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Howard, Major S. G.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Carr, W. Theodore
Johnson, L. S.
Waring, Major Walter


Casey, T. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Whitla, Sir William


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lort-Willlams, J.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Courthope, Major George L.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lynn, B. J.



Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
M'Lean, Lieut. Col. Charles W. W.
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Guest


Denison-Pender, John C.
Mallalieu, F. W.



Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cairns, John
Hartshorn, Vernon


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hayday, Arthur


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John J.


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Malone, Lieut.-Cot. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Spencer, George A.



Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Swan, J. E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Neil Maclean


Robertson, John
Waterson, A. E.



Rose, Frank H.
Wignall, James

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (i), to leave out the words "plus one-tenth part of such excess."

The Clause as it stands now gives the owners not only the total standards of the five pre-war years, but the total standards of £26,000,000 a year. The Government have also relieved them of the cost of the coal control. If the Clause remains with these words included they will also get 10 per cent. of the extra profits that will go into the pool. I remember the Prime Minister coming to the Trade Union Congress—I believe it was in 1915—and telling us that the profits of the employers were going to be limited to pre-war profits during war years. He created a very fine impression at that time, but the unfortunate thing about it was that while the Prime Minister told us about what he was going to do during the war years he did not tell us what he was going to do after the war years. We were told that we were going to have a new point of view and a new spirit, yet we find the old spirit asserted by the coal owners and the Government becoming partners to it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to go over the old ground again. This is a specific point, whether this plus one-tenth should be in the Bill or not. He must not go over the broad arguments which are really Second or Third Reading arguments.

Mr. LAWSON: I thank you very much, Sir. I was just trying to point out that this was in addition to all that the Government had already granted to the coal owners. Whatever the Government may say there is only one deduction to be drawn, and that is that they have made an arrangement with the coal owners. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The coal owners, just as much as the Labour Members, repudiated the 1s. 2d. Bill. Yet on this Bill, which the Government professes gives them no more than the 1s. 2d., they come here to-night and find every possible satisfaction in it, because they know very well that not only does it give them the profits which they demanded,
but even more than they dreamt of getting out of the Government. It is all part of one general policy. We are told that the Prime Minister has definitely decided that he is going to support private enterprise [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, we need not have been told that in the Press, and there need not have been any special mention of it. It is set forth in every line of this Bill we are discussing here to-night.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not following my suggestion to him just now. Let him imagine that he is chairman of one of his own meetings, and keep to the point.

Mr. LAWSON: It seems an unfair thing, as representatives of the public, for the House to say that the owners in addition to all the benefits they get in the Bill, should have 10 per cent. Assume for a moment that there are £20,000,000 profit in the pool, they are going to get £2,000,000 in addition to all they have already obtained. In this House we are often told that certain schemes for the well-being of the nation are very good indeed, but where is the money coming; from? In moving this Amendment, we are showing hon. Members on the other side of the House, and also the public, where the money is going to, although we may not be able to tell them sometimes where it is to come from as far as the Exchequer is concerned. We think, however, that as a matter of a public duty we should assert this. We move this Amendment as a public duty because we believe there is very great need for the wealth or profit that would otherwise go into the pool. We cannot for the life of us see why as a matter of common policy the Government should not accept this. I have almost despaired of appealing to them for anything reasonable. I want to put this to the hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who represent the Government. Surely they have been generous enough to the coalowners without granting thorn this extra 10 per cent. Whatever they may think about it,
whatever victories they may score in this House in Division, there is going to be a turmoil and a wave of indignation throughout the country because of the Bill they are passing through here tonight. We ask them, if they cannot see their way clear to accept this Amendment, which means a good deal to the Exchequer but which, in face of what the owners have already got, does not seem to mean a great deal to them. I ought to say this to the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory)—I have known him for many years and have read him continually on various Bills affecting the mining industry—that I do not think he has rendered his own people a service in the line he took in Committee upstairs and has taken on this Bill to-night, for it has led up to a fairly full discussion that has thrashed out the facts of a Bill in a way they would not have been thrashed out on an ordinary night.
This money, which ought to go into the national Exchequer at a crisis like this when it is needed for far sweeping reforms, instead of going in that direction is going into the pockets of the coalowners. It is quite true that if we as miners' representatives, without always trying to keep the public point of view as Members of this House, followed our own particular interests, we could do what the hon. Baronet invited us to do—we could make a deal with them. We have known for a considerable time that here and there in different parts of the country there have been steps taken to encourage us to do a deal with the representatives of the coalowners. In asking the Government to accept the Amendment, I want to say I hope I will never see the time when, however great the advantages may be to the workers in the mining industry, when the workers will agree with the coal-owners to join in that exploitation of the public of this country that has been going on for so long. Rather let us take up the position of standing for public well-being We know that we are part of the great public and, ultimately, however much short-sighted views may seem to benefit us for the time being, the long view is always the best in dealing with questions as public representatives instead of miners' representatives. I would ask the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench if they cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. Some people say there will be nothing in the pool. Some people
say there will be £20,000,000 in the pool. If there is nothing in the pool, why not accept this Amendment. If there is £20,000,000 in the pool, I submit, even from the coalowners' point of view—and the Government's point of view is largely the coalowners' point of view—it is worth accepting the Amendment in order to demonstrate to the public that at any rate they are not prepared to take the last pound of flesh and to play the game of Shylock.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment. The Government have already given the mine owners two presents to-night and we hope that they will give" this present to the consumer and the public by accepting this Amendment. I believe the Government have failed to realise that the biggest portion of the money obtained from the coal industry in this country comes from the export of coal. I will read a part of an address that was given by an expert on the coal industry last week. This is what he says:
The industrial consumer and the domestic consumer are getting their coal at less than the cost of production. The only thing that makes that possible is the high price for exports. If ever exports come down to anything like normal level the industry is ruined. We are engaged in an industry which is marching towards bankruptcy in the strict sense of the term.
That is from an expert on the coal industry. If that is true, then, as the Prime Minister put it when he dealt with the question of the Coal Commission in the early part of last Session in this House, if the claim advanced by the miners was going to be imposed on the mining industry that was going to ruin the smaller industries in different parts of the country that were hardly paying their way to-day. That is going to be, the effect on the steel industry and the tinplate industry of this country, which is an export trade. When the 6s. was imposed, we used for the production of steel four tons of coal. That is an increase in the production of steel of 24s. per ton. When that 24s. per ton is included with the cost of making tinplates, we, in this country, will never be able to compete with American competition. During the period of the War they captured practically all our markets because we were producing little tinplate,
and our Allies consumed the tinplate. We had practically half the industry closed down. Now we are trying to develop that industry, but you are going to make it impossible when you are going to give these persons double the profits. You are going to make it impossible for the tinplate and steel industries in this country to survive by giving all these profits to the mine owners of this country. The Government and all the leading men in this country are talking about production. What is the good of the miners—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We had all that on the last Amendment. That is not the point. We are now on the subsidiary point, whether or not to leave out "plus one-tenth part of such excess."

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am very sorry, but I wanted to show how this was going to hamper production.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That was shown on the main Amendment which we recently disposed of. It does not arise here.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Very well. I have three more points which I might develop, but I will keep them for another occasion. I appeal to the Government. We have been on our feet since 11 o'clock last night, and I think it is wonderful that we have kept the Debate going without getting anybody on the other side to reply to it. I ask the Government to give us a chance between this and breakfast in order that we can find some material with which to reply.

Mr. A. PARKINSON: In rising to support the Amendment I do so because I feel that one-tenth of the £1,250,000 is really a gift to the employers, and that it is developing the policy of subsidising private industry and private enterprise. Of course, we are all aware that many hon. Members are all against public enterprise. It has been made quite public this week that the Government are going in that direction. Before we go so far we ought to see what the Prime Minister said in Manchester last December. In a speech there he made this statement—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That really does not arise on this Amendment. Parliamentary proceedings would be impossible if a Third Reading speech were to be made on all the Amendments to the
Bill. Let us devote ourselves to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. PARKINSON: I will try to conform to your ruling. Sir. It is rather difficult I agree, but still the Amendment is to delete "plus one-tenth part of such excess." I feel that by leaving one-tenth in we are at least giving money that would be much better in the Exchequer of the country than in the pockets of the mineowners. Surely the money could be expended to greater advantage. I feel that the coalowners of this country are having quite sufficient profits without having an extra one-tenth given to them. It seems unnecessary to spend money in this direction. They are getting an amount over and above their pre-war profits and now the Government are keeping increasing, every time they move, the profits of the coalowners. I do not think that is reasonable. It wil not meet with the approval of the public. We do not desire that any trouble should arise; probably no trouble will arise; but, at the same time, the people who are going to find the money for this taxation are the people who ought to grumble, and who will grumble. On those grounds, in supporting the deletion of the one-tenth, I think we are stepping in the right direction.

Mr. SPENCER: This part of the Bill proposes to take the profits of the owners on a certain basis and to give beyond that one-tenth. The Amendment proposes to delete that part. Really, one cannot understand what (special virtue there is in this one-tenth. It would be very interesting, indeed, to understand upon what basis the Government have arrived at this particular amount to give to the coalowners, in addition to the amounts already given. I am not going to attempt to traverse the ground which has already been traversed, but it must be noted that we have passed now a provision in this Bill which is going to safeguard the interests of the owner definitely. Those profits are to be safeguarded, whether the industry makes the amount or not. If any unforeseen circumstances arose after the passing of this Bill, and it becomes an Act, whatever happens the coalowners would be assured of the standard profit in this Bill. On the top of that they are to have a further ten per cent. of any surplus that may accumulate
after the wages have been paid and after this profit has been deducted. What will that amount be, and how is it going to affect the minds of the men? Those are two very important points. With regard to the amount, at the end of this year, over the profits of the owners and over the wages of the workmen, there will be a surplus, on 31st March of this year, of approximately £7,000,000. After the profit provided for the coalowners on the basis of this Bill, they are to have a share of those £7,000,000. That is infinitesimal. On the present output, which is progressively increasing, and with the present price of export coal, the surplus at the end of March, 1920, with the amount that will be transferred from this year to next year, will be in the region of £69,000,000. After making provision for the owners in relation to their standard profits, according to this Bill, of about £26,000,000, there will still be a surplus. If this Amendment is defeated the owners will have a further claim upon these profits of about £4,000,000, which will make the total £30,000,000. That is going to be the effect from a financial point of view, but what is going to be the effect on the minds of the workmen when they find that such a large amount is going to the coalowners? With the knowledge of these facts it is not to be expected that you can go to a body of workmen and ask them to keep calm and tranquil. They will know that if they make no demands, no matter what the cost of living may be, it will simply mean that the coalowner will get more. Therefore I suggest that one of the effects of this provision will be that it will cause considerable unrest amongst the mining community. Really, if the Government want to irritate the miners into making exorbitant demands, I know of no better method.

Mr. SWAN: I view this matter with great alarm. It seems to me extraordinary that there should not only be guaranteed profits, but that any surplus that may accrue from increased output should be set aside to increase profits. We hope that under whatever system the miners are managed in the future, whether under nationalisation, private enterprise, or joint control—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have heard this speech twice already.

Mr. SWAN: It is not my intention to transgress. In the future development of the mines we hope that in the distribution of excess profits some consideration will be given to the disgraceful conditions under which the miners are living rather than that the profits should go entirely to the coalowners. In this matter humanity is deserving of consideration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has not any matter more relevant to the particular Amendment he must take his seat.

Mr. SWAN: I am sorry. I would suggest, and I think it is reasonable, that this extra money, instead of going to the quarter intended, might very well go to deal with such matters as nystagmus, which is one of the greatest evils with which the miners are afflicted.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the fourth time. The hon. Member must now resume his seat.

Mr. HARTSHORN: The more I hear the coal question discussed the more fully convinced do I become that we are not far from the day when we shall be in a very serious situation in this country. The provision in the Bill which it is now proposed to leave out, if retained, will be one of the causes of much irritation and unrest in the industry. My hon. Friend behind me explained how this thing will operate, but we are up against this difficulty. The miners are convinced that this Bill awards to the coalowners very generous profits, and they do not intend, if it is possible for them to prevent it, that the coalowners shall get any more than is guaranteed in the Bill. Whenever there is a surplus over and above that, the miners will know that unless they go in for an advance of wages which will absorb the whole of that surplus, the result will be additional profits for the coalowners. That is a fact that will be ever present at all the deliberations of the Miners' Federation. The leaders will have very little influence in restraining the miners from making demands for wages so long as the workers know that, unless they take the surplus in wages, an additional portion will go to the coalowners in profits. I know I shall not be believed; I know nothing we can say from these benches will be accepted; but I am fully convinced that this one-tenth surplus, in addition to
the £26,000,000 provided in the Bill, is going to be fruitful in applications for advances in wages which would not be raised if this provision were not included. I do not know if the Government are bound by this provision, or whether they will consider the advisability, in the general interest of the peace of the industry, of accepting the Amendment. If they will not, we have given an indication of what effect it will have. If they care to take the responsibility of sticking to ii, so far as I am concerned, I have nothing to say. I do not think there is anything to be gained by prolonging this Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Well, if you do not want to get home, I do not see any reason why we should be in a hurry to go. This is one of the subjects that we can talk on. Personally I should like to see the Government drop this proposal. They have already made very generous provision for the owners.

Mr. SWAN: On a point of Order. Is it not within the province of hon. Members to suggest an alternative whereby this money might be used for the benefit of the community, instead of putting it into the pockets of the coalowners?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SWAN: I just asked if it were not within the scope of the Amendment to discuss an alternative method whereby that surplus could be used, instead of its going to coalowners.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I had hoped that the Government, having defeated the previous Amendment, would have seen some reason and justification for the one now before the House. A very important and pernicious principle is involved in this proposal to add 10 per cent. to the other profits which the coalowners will be entitled to take from the industry. You have a dual method by which profits can accrue to those who own the industry. So far as actual production is concerned, it is the perpetuation of a principle established during the War, very largely on the grounds of expediency. In dealing with wages questions we had to adopt this method because of the uncertainty that existed as to what would happen in the immediate future. As soon, however, as we have returned to anything like normal times, the tendency has been to remove
this dual method of calculating wages, and to put everything, so far as possible, on a permanent basis. This dual principle which the Amendment seeks to remove is wrong. Although, in a former part of the Clause, the profits are fixed by a definite sum, in the section below, which we now seek to delete, it is an indefinite one. There is no guarantee what the sum is going to be. Nobody in the House could state exactly what sum of money is represented in the 10 per cent.; it is almost in the nature of an open cheque, and that is very wrong in principle. I am certain that if any body of workmen were to ask, through their representatives, that wages should be fixed on this principle, no body of employers or Government Department would accept it for a moment, simply because it would be argued that there was nothing definite in the matter to indicate the exact amount of money involved in the transaction. If that is a right principle so far as wages are concerned it is also right so far as profits are concerned. I suggest, having carried the main part of the Clause, that there is a real justification for this further Amendment to delete the 10 per cent., because of the pernicious principle associated with it.

5.0 A.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I know quite well that on Report Stage one speech only is allowed for each member and therefore I waited till now in order that I might hear as much as I could of the arguments on the other side and not commit the mistake which I committed before of speaking immediately after the seconder of the amendment. If I was wrong before, I must be right now. It is a very remarkable thing that both as regards this amendment and the one preceding it a great amount of heat and energy has been developed, but not one word, as far as I can remember, was raised on the point either in Second Beading Debate or in Committee upstairs, and I think the hon. Gentleman the member for Rhondda (Major Morgan) lifted the veil a little to show why it was that this demonstration was being made to-night. I cannot help thinking there must be some other cause beyond the one advanced in which it was said he was so afraid of those who sent him here that he was obliged to make a speech when he did not want to and it is quite
obvious that hon. Gentlemen are making the best of this occasion to make a good case for the demands they have put for-ward for an advance in wages.

Mr. LAWSON: Surely you could have warned them of this as a result of the Government yielding in Committee Room upstairs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about this, then it is an odd thing they did not raise it upstairs. Everyone knows why it is being done now. The last hon. Gentleman who spoke objected to this because it was an indefinite sum. Of course it is an indefinite sum because we do not know how much coal will be exported in this emergency period or what the price will be. But the reason was to meet the objection raised on the la. 2d. Bill that to limit the profits to 1s. 2d. a ton was to do away with all enterprise in developing the mining industry. That is the sole reason it has been introduced into this measure. Everyone knows perfectly well that if the coal mining industry is to be a success you must encourage capital to be put into it in order to find work for those who work in the mines. It is perfectly clear that if you give no inducement to put money into mining now, when they can get large percentages in many other kinds of investment, that you are doing the very worst thing for the industry and the worst thing in the world for those who work in it and are represented by me and some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is the reason why it has been done. But I want to say two words in order to brush away misapprehensions that must have arisen to those who listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They entirely ignored the fact that this one-tenth goes side by side with nine-tenths which goes into the pool and can be allocated in any way in which the Government and the House decides. We know one way in which they wish to use it. They have not mentioned that. They have spoken as if this one-tenth went to the owners and the other nine-tenths went goodness knows where. They know where they want it to go, but it is there to go to the State, to themselves, or to some project connected with the industry. Another thing they entirely ignored was that this is an emergency Bill produced
to meet a specially difficult state of affairs. It only lasts for a limited time. A new Bill has been promised and is being prepared at this moment in order to carry on after the period is over, to meet a large number of difficulties raised by hon. Gentlemen in this discussion and to put the coal industry on a much better footing. There is one other point in regard to this Amendment and many others which have been moved. Every speaker on that side has spoken as if the Government have made great concessions to the coal owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "So they have."] Every speaker has spoken in this sense, and nobody who has listened to the Debate would have believed that if we had not passed this Bill that coalowners would get quite £10,000,000 more.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how they will get it, having regard to the fact that under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, they are limited to six-fifths?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The calculation is that they would get £10,000,000 more than they would get now.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It is not true.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite convinced it is so. They would get a large share of their excess profits. What is more, these large profits would go to people who, through no merit of their own, but because they happen to be in favourable geographical position have been allowed to export coal while other coalowners have been forbidden.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it correct to say that those who have not been exporting would be out of pocket instead of having money at their disposal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The State would have to find money for them. The State would have to make good in many directions under the old agreement. To say that this is a great concession to the owner is absolutely untrue, because it is a Bill giving £10,000,000 less to the coalowners than they otherwise would have got, and distributing that sum in a much fairer way than otherwise would have been done.

Mr. ADAMSON: We have heard a very interesting speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of
which he has told us that the Government's reason for putting a 10 per cent. provision in this Clause we are now discussing is because more capital is wanted in the industry. That is the sole reason the Parliamentary Secretary informs us.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said to increase the production.

Mr. ADAMSON: To put more capital in and increase the production. I accept the correction. I do not think that is a statement that will bear very close examination, for this reason. Two or three months ago the Government brought in a Bill dealing with the mining industry, and in that Bill there was no provision of the character that we are now discussing. Had the Government forgotten then that we required to develop the mining industry? I venture to suggest that the Government had as much in mind, then as now, the development of the mining industry and the need for increased production. As a matter of fact when we were discussing that last Bill we had very long discussions regarding the question of production and the necessity for increasing production because the necessity for increasing production then was greater than now.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That was one reason why the Bill was withdrawn.

Mr. ADAMSON: I suggest that that was not the reason why the Bill was withdrawn. We have been told from the Government Bench this morning that the Members of the Labour party were mainly responsible for the withdrawal of the Bill. I have already dealt with that point and I have endeavoured to show the absurdity for such a reason being given for the withdrawal of that Bill. We on this Bench represent 60 out of a House of 700 Members, and to give that as the reason for the withdrawal of the Bill is absurd. The reason was because those who were sitting behind the Government, those who were representing the coal-owners and their friends, were against the Bill and insisted on its withdrawal, and the Bill was withdrawn. Between the withdrawal of the first Bill and the introduction of the second one, we have the Government giving concessions to the coalowners with the view of satisfying them before the second Bill is brought forward. That is the true reason why we have this provision in the Bill. It is
an additional sop given to the colliery owners of the country in order to make them accept this Bill more readily than they did the first Bill. As my hon. Friends have pointed out again and again during the course of the discussion the Government really ought seriously to consider some of the Amendments we are putting forward. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that, so far as our opposition to this stage of the present Bill is concerned, our claim for an advance in wages had nothing whatever to do with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My statement is questioned, but I can assure hon. Members who have questioned it, that the claim for wages had nothing to do with our opposition to this stage of the Bill. Our reason for opposing the Bill so strenuously on this stage was because the Parliamentary Secretary, notwithstanding that he had made such ample provisions in the Bill as originally drafted, very lavishly, in our opinion, gave greater concessions on the Committee stage upstairs, and consequently we informed him that he would have more opposition on the Report stage than he experienced on the Committee stage. I think he would have been well advised to have accepted some of the Amendments put forward. The Amendments that we have been putting forward have certainly not been in the interests of the miners. They have been in the interests of the consumers and the general public of this country. Not one single Amendment that we have put forward in the course of this morning has been an Amendment by which the miners could have benefited in any shape or form. It is as difficult to touch the stony hearts of the supporters of the Government as it is to touch the hearts of the Government itself. I think that, even at this early hour, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to see his way to accept this Amendment. This is one of the extras given to the coalowners in order to get them the more readily to accept the second Bill than the first. In accepting our Amendment it would be giving to the country some greater assurance than has been given up to the present that the Government are prepared to stand up against vested interest. If we carry this Amendment into the Division Lobby and get defeated, there is no shadow of a doubt that the general
public will believe, more strongly than ever, that the Government is the puppet of vested interests,

Mr. LUNN: If I may, I should like respectively to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to one point in his speech. I think that he will regret having made that particular point. If I understood him aright he said that they must encourage private enterprise, so far as this Bill was concerned, because if they did not the owners could take their money out of the industry and get larger profits elsewhere.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I said was that they would not put fresh money in.

Mr. LUNN: I think I have quoted the Parliamentary Secretary correctly.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I think not.

Mr. LUNN: We shall be able to see that to-day and I think he will also see that as well. This Bill is a Bill that is only to last until August 31st of this year and we are living to-day under war conditions. The War has not ended. We have passed recently the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill. We are to have D.O.R.A. for some time. Statements have been made by practically every Member of this House—either Members of the Government or those in opposition—that no one should take advantage of war conditions for his own personal ends. Every hon. Member will agree with me that the War is not technically ended yet. But this morning we have had an experience that we could hardly have expected. The Government have, in one section of this Bill, taken away the cost of the control from the employers and placed it upon the taxpayer. They have increased the profits and now, if there is any surplus over the total standard of profits, they propose to give the coal-owners one-tenth of that surplus. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "We do not mention the other nine-tenths." We, on these Benches, have no desire that there should be such excess profits made in the industry. All after, the Excess Profits Tax which has been levied has not

been paid to the extent of something like £265,000,000. That sum is owing to-day, so that the owners are trying to get out even of their dues, and the demands due to the State, which they ought to contribute to-day as well. We see that it is impossible in any way to obtain from the Government concessions. I think we may take it for granted that, after the report which has appeared in the Press of the Prime Minister's speech, that the Government intend to fight labour with all their might, this morning and last night is a good exhibition of the beginning of the fight in contesting the claims of the workers who are trying, through their representatives in this House, not to defend any particular section of the community, but to defend the community at large against a very small and privileged section.

Mr. LENG-STURROCK: Before we come to a Division upon the point at issue, we are entitled to express resentment at the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down in reference to the action of the Government in regard to labour. It is no part, I am sure, of the policy of this or any other Government to repudiate any legitimate claim made on behalf of labour.

Mr. LUNN: I did not say that was the policy of the Government. I said it was reported in the Press last night that that was the Prime Minister's statement of the intention of the supporters of the Government.

Mr. LENG-STURROCK: I accept the hon. Member's repudiation. It is an important point, because those of us who are in sympathy with labour do not wish to find that we are necessarily alienated from the just claims of any section of the labouring community. Having been kept up to such a late hour, I hope that we may now be permitted to come to a decision on this matter without any unnecessary prejudice being introduced.

Question put: "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 28.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[5.24 a.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Baird, John Lawrence
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W C. H. (Devizes)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Baldwin, Stanley
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnett, Major R. W.
Betterton, Henry B.


Atkey, A. R.
Barnston, Major Harry
Bigland, Alfred


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Glyn, Major Ralph
Neal, Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gould, James C.
Parker, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Preston, W. R.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Casey, T. W.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard, Major S. G.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Caurthope, Major George L.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Johnson, L. S.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sturrock, J. Leng


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Waring, Major Walter


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lynn, R. J.
Whitla, Sir William


Falcon, Captain Michael
McLaren, Robert (Lanark. Northern)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Farquharson, Major A. C.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Forrest, Walter
Macquisten, F. A.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mallalieu, F. W.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morrison, Bell, Major A. C.
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.
Guest


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, George A.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E. C.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, William (Plaistow)


Bromfield, William
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Cairns, John
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wignall, James


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robertson, John
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Nell


Hartshorn, Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.
Maclean


Hayday, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next four Amendments on the Paper are con-sequential down to the last one, and that is out of Order, because, if carried, there would be two contradictory arrangements in force at the same time.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Amendment which you have just stated to be out of Order (to omit Clause 9) is one that raises one of the most important points in the Bill. [Laughter.] I am rather surprised at the hilarity with which a serious statement like that is received. This is one of the most important points of the Bill. It raises the whole question of the continuance of coal control. I do not know anything more important from the point of view of the country and the coal trade than that. I hope your ruling at this stage will not prevent us from having this question very fully discussed on Third Reading, and that arrangements will be made by the Government to give us the fullest opportunity of debating this, as
well as many other important questions that we desire to debate, on that stage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is certainly quite a proper question to raise on the Third Reading of the Bill. The effect of leaving out Clause (9) would be to nullify Clause (1). That is the only reason why I ruled it out of Order as an Amendment. It would leave the Bill in an incoherent position. Of course, it is quite a proper Amendment to raise on Third Reading.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment: Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes before Six o'clock a.m., 19th March.